Science, Religion, and Ignorance.

[Uverdore9]

The real question is what I asked.

You're creating a cherry picked scenario that doesn't address the topic of this post, which is faith over science. The analogy wasn't mean to be technical, it was just to address whether or not one will simply deny an expert's opinion just because they don't like what they hear.

An expert's opinion vs baseless belief.

I've something to ask you. You're debating this for debake sake right? You're not seriously saying god is nonexistent right? You seriously dont think god is not there right? You seriously dont think the universe created by itself on some vague day right?

 

[Lightbringer]

Your the one that brought doctors into conversation or have you forgotten? My scenario was very much on point as to what the op was referring to while yours was very narrow minded.

The doctor analogy can be replaced with anything else, such as engineers. That's the whole point.

Your analogy was not on point at all, it focused on my doctor analogy by trying to give me an unlikely scenario where Doctors might not be aware of experimental treatments and would deliberately withhold information because the Big Pharma told them to. That holds no relevance to what I originally asked.

So I'll ask again, except I'll use engineers this time.

If 5 different engineers were to tell you that your plane was going to crash mid-flight, would you still board that plane or would simply take it on faith that you will make it?

I've something to ask you. You're debating this for debake sake right? You're not seriously saying god is nonexistent right? You seriously dont think god is not there right? You seriously dont think the universe created by itself on some vague day right?

I said that there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God.

Whether or not I believe he does or does not exist isn't the topic. The topic is that there's no evidence to suggest that he does exist at this point in time.

So saying that God is a certainty without some form of tangible evidence (not simply belief) is irrational, especially since the more we learn about the world, the less "God" is factored into it.

And for people who ask for evidence to disprove God is a logical fallacy, for that "that which is asserted with without evidence can be rebuked without evidence."

And then there are those who claim that the illogical aspects of the universe are simply God's divine wisdom, which again is an irrational belief.

 

[kimb]

I like how we're bringing threads back from the dead. If this ain't proof of God, I don't know what is

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

This is a thread challenging science and religion wrapped up with a final point that's nearly completely unrelated. If you're REALLY concerned with why the science community rejects so many notions that people put up, just look at America's current right-wing and note the fact that their reality quite literally seems to be different than most of everyone else's. Those who approve scientific theories & conclusions may always have an agenda, but what works and holds true is not something that changes simply because the a single tester thinks it doesn't further their narrative. In religion, facts aren't so solid and you end up with dozens upon dozens of factions full of cherrypickers that all believe the next is the wrong.

 

[Uverdore9]

I said that there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God.

Whether or not I believe he does or does not exist isn't the topic. The topic is that there's no evidence to suggest that he does exist at this point in time.

So saying that God is a certainty without some form of tangible evidence (not simply belief) is irrational, especially since the more we learn about the world, the less "God" is factored into it.

And for people who ask for evidence to disprove God is a logical fallacy, for that "that which is asserted with without evidence can be rebuked without evidence."

And then there are those who claim that the illogical aspects of the universe are simply God's divine wisdom, which again is an irrational belief.

Are you asking for scientific proof that god exists? Imagine you're a gta 5 character. I'm one too. I ask you one question. A simple question. "Give me proof the creator of this "game" we live in, exists". Can you give me if i ask you that? The characters in gta 5 which includes me and you will never know who the director is. No matter how much they try to find his identity. What if god is controlling our every movement? Who knows? Like in a game.

 

[Lightbringer]

Are you asking for scientific proof that god exists? Imagine you're a gta 5 character. I'm one too. I ask you one question. A simple question. "Give me proof the creator of this "game" we live in, exists". Can you give me if i ask you that? The characters in gta 5 which includes me and you will never know who the director is. No matter how much they try to find his identity. What if god is controlling our every movement? Who knows? Like in a game.

So let me just reaffirm what you're saying. There is no proof of God's existence, right?

People rationalize why God exists no matter how much we learn about the universe and that is counter-productive.

Even if we learned about what caused the Big Bang, what came before, gained immortal life, traversed the entire universe, etc. People will always give some excuse to why we haven't found God, much like you did.

If God is infinite, then there will always be an infinite number of reasons as to why we haven't found God's existence.

But as it stands, we haven't found any evidence of God nor have we found any proof of the soul existing within our bodies.

And unless you have evidence that would suggest God's existence, saying God's existence is probable is moot.

 

[Uverdore9]

So let me just reaffirm what you're saying. There is no proof of God's existence, right?

People rationalize why God exists no matter how much we learn about the universe and that is counter-productive.

Even if we learned about what caused the Big Bang, what came before, gained immortal life, traversed the entire universe, etc. People will always give some excuse to why we haven't found God, much like you did.

If God is infinite, then there will always be an infinite number of reasons as to why we haven't found God's existence.

But as it stands, we haven't found any evidence of God nor have we found any proof of the soul existing within our bodies.

And unless you have evidence that would suggest God's existence, saying God's existence is probable is moot.

Logic vs logic is always valid if one doesnt have proof. Evidence is inferior to logic. You can always guess there is a fire without seeing it directly but by the smoke. Likewise, you cannot refute my logic of making god the creator of a game and me and everyone else are game characters. Those game characters can only go by the rules. Thats it. They cant overun the rules and smash out of the computer to see the "creator". This logic is as logical as saying god doesnt exist because "proof". By the way, i've plenty of similar findings stacked up but i think that also could be some fake conartist stuff after seeing ron wyatt's case. So i'm not looking for man's proof, all of them could be a lie. Even NASA lies to humanity. A lie isnt a lie until one disaproves it. We all thought neil armstrong visited the moon seriously but later we got evidence it was a lie made up by the space station.

 

[Lightbringer]

Logic vs logic is always valid if one doesnt have proof. Evidence is inferior to logic. You can always guess there is a fire without seeing it directly but by the smoke. Likewise, you cannot refute my logic of making god the creator of a game and me and everyone else are game characters. Those game characters can only go by the rules. Thats it. They cant overun the rules and smash out of the computer to see the "creator". This logic is as logical as saying god doesnt exist because "proof". By the way, i've plenty of similar findings stacked up but i think that also could be some fake conartist stuff after seeing ron wyatt's case. So i'm not looking for man's proof, all of them could be a lie. Even NASA lies to humanity. A lie isnt a lie until one disaproves it. We all thought neil armstrong visited the moon seriously but later we got evidence it was a lie made up by the space station.

Videogame characters aren't able to think critically. If videogame characters were programmed to have the same decision making as humans, then yeah, they would be able to find evidence of God since their world is literally just made up of code and there are visible glitches that can be found within that code.

Again, you're giving me what you "think" is possible and that is the problem. You're also confusing logic with belief. Logic is based on evidence, not non-evidence.

You can't say it's logical that God exists when there's nothing that would hint toward that. It would be like me saying that it's logical that I'll win a lottery tomorrow because I've had a winning streak all week.

Your "logic" is the same rationale as Pagan beliefs. They didn't know that the Earth revolved around the Sun, so Greeks believed that it was the God Helios pulling the Sun every morning and night, creating a sunrise/sunset. To them that was "logical."

 

[Uverdore9]

Videogame characters aren't able to think critically. If videogame characters were programmed to have the same decision making as humans, then yeah, they would be able to find evidence of God since their world is literally just made up of code and there are visible glitches that can be found within that code.

Again, you're giving me what you "think" is possible and that is the problem. You're also confusing logic with people. Logic is based on evidence not non-evidence.

You can't say it's logical that God exists when there's nothing that would hint toward that. It would be like me saying that it's logical that I'll win a lottery tomorrow because I've had a winning streak all week.

Your "logic" is the same rationale as Pagan beliefs. They didn't know that the Earth revolved around the Sun, so Greeks believed that it was the God Helios pulling the Sun every morning and night, creating a sunrise/sunset. To them that was "logical."

Are you sure that "god helios" is not pulling the sun? Science doesnt disaprove he does though. Science cannot even give an explanation to how earthquakes form. "Earthquakes are the result of tectonic plates grinding with each other...", but by whom? Who grinds them together? Science can only explain the outcome. Not the cause. Of these very things which have happened and is happening from centuries before. So how can i prove something or give evidence with a very un-advanced thing like science and evidence? Even if i bring a mountain of discoveries, even i cant trust them. Why? Because fake researchers must be spreading lies as facts as seen above. I cannot simply give you some lies as fact. But okay here is one "evidence" which i believe is most trustworthy, it could be a lie, i dont know. But Because you insisted you want proof,

You must be registered for see links

^^ this is the happening of something john the favourite disciple of jesus wrote some 2000 years ago or so. In the book of revelations. 666 is the number of the beast or antichrist. The european union has a vacant seat "666". European union is designed in the same manner as paintings of tower of babel which is the tower nimrod, a powerful warrior in bible, was building. Now do you think john was lying when he wrote the book? John was jailed in patmos when he got the prophetic visions from god. The statue in front of the european union is the woman sitting atop a scarlet beast which a verse in revelations talk about. How can so many things of this one book be sculpted just like that in one building alone? Can you really say god doesnt exist after reading this?

 

[Lightbringer]

Are you sure that "god helios" is not pulling the sun? Science doesnt disaprove he does though. Science cannot even give an explanation to how earthquakes form. "Earthquakes are the result of tectonic plates grinding with each other...", but by whom? Who grinds them together? Science can only explain the outcome. Not the cause. Of these very things which have happened and is happening from centuries before. So how can i prove something or give evidence with a very un-advanced thing like science and evidence? Even if i bring a mountain of discoveries, even i cant trust them. Why? Because fake researchers must be spreading lies as facts as seen above. I cannot simply give you some lies as fact. But okay here is one "evidence" which i believe is most trustworthy, it could be a lie, i dont know. But Because you insisted you want proof,

You must be registered for see links

^^ this is the happening of something john the favourite disciple of jesus wrote some 2000 years ago or so. In the book of revelations. 666 is the number of the beast or antichrist. The european union has a vacant seat "666". European union is designed in the same manner as paintings of tower of babel which is the tower nimrod, a powerful warrior in bible, was building. Now do you think john was lying when he wrote the book? John was jailed in patmos when he got the prophetic visions from god. The statue in front of the european union is the woman sitting atop a scarlet beast which a verse in revelations talk about. How can so many things of this one book be sculpted just like that in one building alone? Can you really say god doesnt exist after reading this?

"That which is asserted with without evidence can be rebuked without evidence"

This is just utterly ridiculous. I have nothing else to say.

 

[SamAdams]

The doctor analogy can be replaced with anything else, such as engineers. That's the whole point.

Your analogy was not on point at all, it focused on my doctor analogy by trying to give me an unlikely scenario where Doctors might not be aware of experimental treatments and would deliberately withhold information because the Big Pharma told them to. That holds no relevance to what I originally asked.

So I'll ask again, except I'll use engineers this time.

If 5 different engineers were to tell you that your plane was going to crash mid-flight, would you still board that plane or would simply take it on faith that you will make it?

Man are you thick. Your the one missing the point here and engineers can’t be used in this context.

I didn’t say big pharma told the doctors anything. Its the education doctors get that focus on treatment with drugs while having very little knowledge concerning prevention or proper lifestyle choices and in many cases will dismiss the latter having any substantial impact on the patient.

Its not really their fault. Its the system they were educated in.

This is the same senario with science and religion. Whether its prominent reputations that are being protected, a specific agenda being pushed etc. A seminary school for a baptist preacher is going to be taught very differently than a catholic school with both being taught from the same book.

Science is no different. Global warming is a great example of this. The point of view that gets the most credit is the point of view that those with the most influence in science hold and like religion, its not to be questioned which leaves many scientist ignorantly holding a belief due to being educated or rather indoctrinated by this one particular side of this study or any other numourus studies while ignoring good science of a differing view point.

 

[Lightbringer]

Man are you thick. Your the one missing the point here and engineers can’t be used in this context.

I didn’t say big pharma told the doctors anything. Its the education doctors get that focus on treatment with drugs while having very little knowledge concerning prevention or proper lifestyle choices and in many cases will dismiss the latter having any substantial impact on the patient.

Its not really their fault. Its the system they were educated in.

This is the same senario with science and religion. Whether its prominent reputations that are being protected, a specific agenda being pushed etc. A seminary school for a baptist preacher is going to be taught very differently than a catholic school with both being taught from the same book.

Science is no different. Global warming is a great example of this. The point of view that gets the most credit is the point of view that those with the most influence in science hold and like religion, its not to be questioned which leaves many scientist ignorantly holding a belief due to being educated or rather indoctrinated by this one particular side of this study or any other numourus studies while ignoring good science of a differing view point.

The whole point of science is for it to be questioned....

But in order to do that you would need a solid theory with substantial evidence to back that theory up.

Religion on the other hand is not to be questioned and all contradictions within holy texts is meant to be either overlooked or rationalized in some way to justify it.

Religion does not have any evidence or data to back its claims of God's existence.

 

[Uverdore9]

"That which is asserted with without evidence can be rebuked without evidence"

This is just utterly ridiculous. I have nothing else to say.

Are you saying the link is fabricated? how can a seat in the european union be exactly vacant 666 even though there are people who have taken the descending seats. The bible tells the number is the antichrist and thats exactly why the seat is there. why does the european union be build with exact same shape of tower of babel? Why a woman atop a beast in front of its building? Exactly described in chapters of bible? its the work of god and the visions he gave god otherwise such a coincidence is not possible.

 

[SamAdams]

The whole point of science is for it to be questioned....

But in order to do that you would need a solid theory with substantial evidence to back that theory up.

Religion on the other hand is not to be questioned and all contradictions within holy texts is meant to be either overlooked or rationalized in some way to justify it.

Religion does not have any evidence or data to back its claims of God's existence.

Your either monsterously misinformed or just lying. Science many times over has takin unsubstantiated theories and preached them at a steady drum beat as fact, build other studies around a particular topic, create a new math formula to make a theory fit thst otherwise wouldn’t and alienate and slander anyone who would try to present evidence to the contrary.

Again, global warming is a great example of this. The science is very much unsetteled on the topic and just observe how scientist who oppose the narritive are treated.

Its not about science. Its about agendas, reputations and money.

If you think the leaders of the scientific community aren’t corrupt with an agenda that serves the elite like every other institution you are a very naive person.

 

[Lightbringer]

Your either monsterously misinformed or just lying. Science many times over has takin unsubstantiated theories and preached them at a steady drum beat as fact, build other studies around a particular topic, create a new math formula to make a theory fit thst otherwise wouldn’t and alienate and slander anyone who would try to present evidence to the contrary.

Again, global warming is a great example of this. The science is very much unsetteled on the topic and just observe how scientist who oppose the narritive are treated.

Its not about science. Its about agendas, reputations and money.

If you think the leaders of the scientific community aren’t corrupt with an agenda that serves the elite like every other institution you are a very naive person.

And were those "theories" accepted as legitimate science by the scientific community? Can you cite me some examples of this?

I don't know why you keep bringing up Global Warming. Are you saying it's not real and was fabricated in order to make a profit?

 

[Uverdore9]

And were those "theories" accepted as legitimate science by the scientific community? Can you cite me some examples of this?

I don't know why you keep bringing up Global Warming. Are you saying it's not real and was fabricated in order to make a profit?

I just gave you proof of god's existence and you're ignoring it and going on as if there no iota of evidence to this. Great.

 

[Cornson]

I just gave you proof of god's existence and you're ignoring it and going on as if there no iota of evidence to this. Great.

You gave no evidence, you posted a link to a known fraud that have been proven to lie about his findings.

 

[SamAdams]

And were those "theories" accepted as legitimate science by the scientific community? Can you cite me some examples of this?

I don't know why you keep bringing up Global Warming. Are you saying it's not real and was fabricated in order to make a profit?

I’d call the Remote Sensing Systems thats been used since 1978 legitimate science yes. Theres more but the RSS will suffice for this discussion.

Honestly I could care less about global warming. There will always be climate change with ir without man. Its just an easy topic to use as an example because its so publicized.

The community your referring to would be the majority. Its easy to be in the majority. Go along to get along and such. Just because your a majority doesn’t make you right. Thats been proven time and again throughout history. I have more respect for an intelligent minority thats not afraid to swim against the tide.

 

[Lightbringer]

I’d call the Remote Sensing Systems thats been used since 1978 legitimate science yes. Theres more but the RSS will suffice for this discussion.

Not sure what you're saying here. Is this an example of unsubstantiated theories accepted as legitimate science by the scientific community?

Honestly I could care less about global warming. There will always be climate change with ir without man. Its just an easy topic to use as an example because its so publicized.

You obviously have not researched global warming and simply have a preconceived notion about it to dismiss the idea that it's any concern at all.

There is a difference between natural climate change and man-made climate change. What should take thousands of years to happen has happened within 200 because of our activities. There is empirical data about this, which includes recorded temperature, carbon emissions, ocean toxicity, sea levels, etc. The last two years have been the hottest years on record.

We are already seeing the affects in real time. Hurricanes are more frequent and more powerful. Massive amounts of fish are dying. Pollution in some regions is so thick it creates smog. North Africa and the Middle East are facing extreme drought and heat to the point that it's causing civil war and mass migration. It so hot in those regions that within a few decades it will be uninhabitable to any life.

Island nations are being swallowed up by the rising sea. One Island-nation by the name of Kiribati will be completely underwater within 40 years. Much of the East and West Coast of the U.S. will also be affected and displace millions of people.

The Arctic is melting and an iceberg the size of the state of Delaware has broken off. Under the arctic ice, there is enough methane to wipe out all of humanity. Scientific data suggests that given the trend, within 30-50 years, we will see catastrophic events due to climate change and within a 100 years, there will be mass extinction.

Just because it hasn't affected you directly doesn't mean it's not already affecting other people.

And if you think that Global Warming is a nothing-burger, well you're dead wrong and you will come to realize that soon enough. It is literally the biggest existential threat to humanity and all life on Earth.

So please, educate yourself before saying it's a hoax.

The community your referring to would be the majority. Its easy to be in the majority. Go along to get along and such. Just because your a majority doesn’t make you right. Thats been proven time and again throughout history. I have more respect for an intelligent minority thats not afraid to swim against the tide.

But what you're referring to wasn't science, but religion. The intelligent minority were those who questioned religion through observable data and research.

The fact that science has become more mainstream doesn't make them similar to religion in any away. Research and data are challenged and peer reviewed by other individuals and scientists from around the world to see if the science is correct. When it is, then it is accepted as valid work.

You argue that science can be wrong, well that is still part of the scientific method. Science isn't simply about being right all of the time, it's also about being wrong because being wrong let's you know what something isn't, which still gives us a better understanding of the universe. It's still information and that's what science is; simply data accumulated. It's amoral and unbiased, unlike religion.

So to say that science is just a hive-mind like religion is ignorant.

 

[SamAdams]

What if God pulling a rib out of Adam to make Eve is really an explanation of an electron being removed from an atom to explain the begining of creation?

Not sure what you're saying here. Is this an example of unsubstantiated theories accepted as legitimate science by the scientific community?



You obviously have not researched global warming and simply have a preconceived notion about it to dismiss the idea that it's any concern at all.

There is a difference between natural climate change and man-made climate change. What should take thousands of years to happen has happened within 200 because of our activities. There is empirical data about this, which includes recorded temperature, carbon emissions, ocean toxicity, sea levels, etc. The last two years have been the hottest years on record.

We are already seeing the affects in real time. Hurricanes are more frequent and more powerful. Massive amounts of fish are dying. Pollution in some regions is so thick it creates smog. North Africa and the Middle East are facing extreme drought and heat to the point that it's causing civil war and mass migration. It so hot in those regions that within a few decades it will be uninhabitable to any life.

Island nations are being swallowed up by the rising sea. One Island-nation by the name of Kiribati will be completely underwater within 40 years. Much of the East and West Coast of the U.S. will also be affected and displace millions of people.

The Arctic is melting and an iceberg the size of the state of Delaware has broken off. Under the arctic ice, there is enough methane to wipe out all of humanity. Scientific data suggests that given the trend, within 30-50 years, we will see catastrophic events due to climate change and within a 100 years, there will be mass extinction.

Just because it hasn't affected you directly doesn't mean it's not already affecting other people.

And if you think that Global Warming is a nothing-burger, well you're dead wrong and you will come to realize that soon enough. It is literally the biggest existential threat to humanity and all life on Earth.

So please, educate yourself before saying it's a hoax.




But what you're referring to wasn't science, but religion. The intelligent minority were those who questioned religion through observable data and research.

The fact that science has become more mainstream doesn't make them similar to religion in any away. Research and data are challenged and peer reviewed by other individuals and scientists from around the world to see if the science is correct. When it is, then it is accepted as valid work.

You argue that science can be wrong, well that is still part of the scientific method. Science isn't simply about being right all of the time, it's also about being wrong because being wrong let's you know what something isn't, which still gives us a better understanding of the universe. It's still information and that's what science is; simply data accumulated. It's amoral and unbiased, unlike religion.

So to say that science is just a hive-mind like religion is ignorant.

Oh but science is a hive mind where it matters, at the top and no scientist climbs that ladder without joining that have.

Thats not ignorance my friend. Thats the world we live in. Unless you have eyes wide shut.

No use in circular arguing with the rest. Ive done my research and rest well with what I know.