Thread: Science kills religion.

Originally Posted by User

Nice

Science is a great tool, but it can be so dogmatic.

How are you defining dogmatic here? I don't understand that statement in relation to the quote it is a response to. At any rate, it seems as if science is one of the least dogmatic systems of knowledge out there.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

How are you defining dogmatic here? I don't understand that statement in relation to the quote it is a response to. At any rate, it seems as if science is one of the least dogmatic systems of knowledge out there.

Science itself but the people around it perhaps

So when you don't know the answer to a question, you make one up instead of accept that you do not know the answer and search for one? That's pretty lame.

Wait, you're talking about the people that think that there is a man in the sky that made everything in seven days right? I just need to clarify because that charge gets leveled at both sides Sometimes the 'scientists' deserve it but the scientists never do: by definition in fact.

Me? I'm talking about anyone who says that Science doesn't have an answer for everyhting and that religion is a substitute for an answer. Not the people who blatantly ignore proven facts. Those people are beyond hope and reason.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

So when you don't know the answer to a question, you make one up instead of accept that you do not know the answer and search for one? That's pretty lame.

Sounds like evolution.

AHhhAaaaHHHAaaaAHhAhAHhAaa Ok. Ok



Just a second. Ok. I'm cool now. *takes deep breath*

The problem with saying that evolution is a made up anshhAAAhhhAAAAhhhaaaaHhaaAAAaaaAHHAaaAaaAAAAHAHHH

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

AHhhAaaaHHHAaaaAHhAhAHhAaa Ok. Ok



Just a second. Ok. I'm cool now. *takes deep breath*

The problem with saying that evolution is a made up anshhAAAhhhAAAAhhhaaaaHhaaAAAaaaAHHAaaAaaAAAAHAHHH

Forget evolution in general, I'm talking about all of the leaping and stretching that is used when trying to prove it. If scientists say they "found" something that helps prove some blind theory, why do I have to believe it. Why can't I question whether they found it or not.

Oh that's right, they're scientists.

Originally Posted by User

Sounds like evolution.

Oh, and what's made up in evolution?

Originally Posted by User

Forget evolution in general, I'm talking about all of the leaping and stretching that is used when trying to prove it. If scientists say they "found" something that helps prove some blind theory, why do I have to believe it. Why can't I question whether they found it or not.

Oh that's right, they're scientists.

You can question anything you want. That alone doesn't make you smart. Study biology, physics, chemistry etc. Then you'll have the right to seriously question it.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Oh, and what's made up in evolution?

There is no direct and gradual transition between fossils. The fossil record ascribed to the human past actually reveals no evolution, evolutionists refuse to abandon the idea and continue, whatever the position might be, to tell tall tales of human evolution. Naturally, that approach is not scientifically consistent. This now faith.

suppose I have a species b and a species c. I claim c evolved from b. You say, show me d that's between b and c. I find d. now instead of one gap, I have two. You say, now show me e between b and d and f between d and c. Do you see how that works.

We have the austrolopithecenes. We have homo habilis. We have homo erectus. We have homo florensis. we have homo sapiens neanderthalis. Plenty of variation. Do you see why I don't take you seriously?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Oh, and what's made up in evolution?

You can question anything you want. That alone doesn't make you smart. Study biology, physics, chemistry etc. Then you'll have the right to seriously question it.

That's way too involved. Nobody needs a degree to point out bullshit.

Its strange that I have to gain a right to question something, but the supernatural, being that it's beyond our comprehension, gets questioned all the time. Is it the people that are well versed in spirituality that are questioning it, or is it science buffs?

suppose I have a species b and a species c. I claim c evolved from b. You say, show me d that's between b and c. I find d. now instead of one gap, I have two. You say, now show me e between b and d and f between d and c. Do you see how that works.

We have the austrolopithecenes. We have homo habilis. We have homo erectus. We have homo florensis. we have homo sapiens neanderthalis. Plenty of variation. Do you see why I don't take you seriously?

Where'd they come from and why aren't they around today.

Originally Posted by User

That's way too involved. Nobody needs a degree to point out bullshit.

Its strange that I have to gain a right to question something, but the supernatural, being that it's beyond our comprehension, gets questioned all the time. Is it the people that are well versed in spirituality that are questioning it, or is it science buffs?

How can you point out bullshit, if you don't even know what's going on?
Forget the fossils then! Where is the bullshit in evolution as a theory, in theory itself, where?

And about your supernatural. There is no technique to measure the supernatural. You can test that which is claimed to have effect on an objective level, the domain of science. But when a psychic tells me that his energies are being channeled from this and that etc. etc. ... How the hell am I supposed to do anything with that? Yes, yes, just believe them on no basis whatsoever. The supernatural is, in my opinion, illogical. Before you tell me to go study magic, I think I'm entitled to question things that claim to be happening in my universe. The only logical way is the scientific method. So I'd rather measure how often a psychic gets something wrong, then fall into some crystal energy channeling class, which is more often than not, proven to be hogwash. If I want to experience "supernatural" I'll just meditate, or get high on something.

Originally Posted by User

Where'd they come from and why aren't they around today.

From a common ancestor?

Originally Posted by User

That's way too involved. Nobody needs a degree to point out bullshit.

No but you do need an education to be able to identify bullshit. see the .999~ = 1 thread in SB for a nice example of that.

Originally Posted by User

Its strange that I have to gain a right to question something, but the supernatural, being that it's beyond our comprehension, gets questioned all the time. Is it the people that are well versed in spirituality that are questioning it, or is it science buffs?

Supernatural doesn't exists. If astral projection exists, then it's natural. If ghosts or reincarnation exist, then it's natural. So when you say super natural, I say bullshit. I don't know that they don't exist but I want to see evidence. You list a phenomenon, I'll list conditions for me to accept it as real. That's how this works.

Originally Posted by User

Where'd they come from and why aren't they around today.

As I understand it, the austrolopithecines came from earlier apes that I don't know, homo habilis came from them, homo erectus came from habilis, homo florensis and homo sapiens came from erectus and the others are extinct because the environment changed and they weren't able to keep up. Our branch got lucky and accumulated mutations that adapted them. I think that that might be out of date in that it was the best conjecture at the time and new evidence might have come to light. When you ask why they aren't around today, are you implying that they didn't exist? Cause we have skeletons you know?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No but you do need an education to be able to identify bullshit. see the .999~ = 1 thread in SB for a nice example of that.



Supernatural doesn't exists. If astral projection exists, then it's natural. If ghosts or reincarnation exist, then it's natural. So when you say super natural, I say bullshit. I don't know that they don't exist but I want to see evidence. You list a phenomenon, I'll list conditions for me to accept it as real. That's how this works.

As I understand it, the austrolopithecines came from earlier apes that I don't know, homo habilis came from them, homo erectus came from habilis, homo florensis and homo sapiens came from erectus and the others are extinct because the environment changed and they weren't able to keep up. Our branch got lucky and accumulated mutations that adapted them. I think that that might be out of date in that it was the best conjecture at the time and new evidence might have come to light. When you ask why they aren't around today, are you implying that they didn't exist? Cause we have skeletons you know?

You're obviously caught up on the term 'supernatural' itself and you do not know its meaning. You say the supernatural doesn't exist, though millions of people say otherwise, and then turn around saying that you don't know that it does't exist?

- The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.


Lastly, skeletons don't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't made up just to support the theory?

Originally Posted by User

You're obviously caught up on the term 'supernatural' itself and you do not know its meaning. You say the supernatural doesn't exist, though millions of people say otherwise, and then turn around saying that you don't know that it does't exist?

re-read what I said with an open-mind if that confuses you.

Originally Posted by User

- The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.

That's a lame definition and I don't need you to translate latin for me, thank you very much.Like I said, present some supernatural phenomenon that you would like me to accept and I will present a list of conditions that will make me accept it.

Originally Posted by User

Lastly, skeletons don't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't made up just to support the theory?

answer 1)Lastly, millions of people saying something doesn't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't making it up just to support a theory.

answer 2) I've at least seen pictures. It would be pretty hard to do and I don't understand the motive comes from. scientists want truth. Yes they want to get famous and yes you can find examples of them falsifying evidence but what you are talking about is just ridiculous. Enough scientists look at them and enough skeletons have been found to take it seriously.

answer 3) ahHHHAaaahHhaaaHHHHHaaahHHHaaaahhhHHHhaaaHHHH
Seriously dude? I mean, do you enjoy being ignorant?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

re-read what I said with an open-mind if that confuses you.



[/I]That's a lame definition and I don't need you to translate latin for me, thank you very much.Like I said, present some supernatural phenomenon that you would like me to accept and I will present a list of conditions that will make me accept it.





answer 1)Lastly, millions of people saying something doesn't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't making it up just to support a theory.

answer 2) I've at least seen pictures. It would be pretty hard to do and I don't understand the motive comes from. scientists want truth. Yes they want to get famous and yes you can find examples of them falsifying evidence but what you are talking about is just ridiculous. Enough scientists look at them and enough skeletons have been found to take it seriously.

answer 3) ahHHHAaaahHhaaaHHHHHaaahHHHaaaahhhHHHhaaaHHHH
Seriously dude? I mean, do you enjoy being ignorant?

You obviously do need a translation because your interpretation was way off. There are supernatural experiences all over this board. Make your own case, since you're the one refuting the existence of the supernatural.

Saying that enough scientists look at the fossils doesn't prove anything. You weren't there to confirm that. In a world dull of technology that can be used to manipulate images and other media, the best you come up with is "I've seen pictures?" I guess I am ridiculous because I'm questioning things and seeking answers. Your education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.

I'm sure the unexplained experiences of millions are falsified to support a supernatural theory and push some grandiose agenda. These people, scattered abroad the globe, can meet daily. Get over yourself. For someone so quick to call others ignorant, you sure are naive. smh...

Originally Posted by User

You obviously do need a translation because your interpretation was way off. There are supernatural experiences all over this board. Make your own case, since you're the one refuting the existence of the supernatural.

above nature? bullshit. Everything is in nature. Nothing exists outside of nature. We're having a semantic argument, that's all. You can't even name one phenomena that you want me to give you criterion for acceptence. You aren't interested in finding truth, you're interested in having what you already think be right. Most of the experiences on this board can be explained by SP and HH. Simple as that. It is not the onus of one refuting something to prove it's non-existence (that's impossible as it would require infinite knowledge you fucking moron) but is the onus of the one who would like it accepted.

Originally Posted by User

Saying that enough scientists look at the fossils doesn't prove anything. You weren't there to confirm that. In a world dull of technology that can be used to manipulate images and other media, the best you come up with is "I've seen pictures?" I guess I am ridiculous because I'm questioning things and seeking answers. Your education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.

We'll, i've seen pictures in old books from before the days of photoshop but I suppose that 'they' manufactured them and put them in my attic. You aren't questioning shit. You are denying it. To satisfy you, you would have to go to the rift lakes and dig the fossils up yourself. You probably still wouldn't believe it. You would think that the scientists went around and buried a bunch of fossils for you to find.

Originally Posted by User

I'm sure the unexplained experiences of millions are falsified to support a supernatural theory and push some grandiose agenda. These people, scattered abroad the globe, can meet daily. Get over yourself. For someone so quick to call others ignorant, you sure are naive. smh...

Probably because they feel so bad about their pathetic lives (or are pissed off that their daddy didn't get them a pony for their sweet 16) and so they want attention and decide that they are witches or some bullshit.

The fact that people like you exist pisses me off to no end. How can a member of my species be so goddamned stupid?!?! It blows my mind

For the record, I think that reincarnation is probable, work on my chakras in my lucid dreams and think that there are fundamental connections between conciousness and physical reality. I am intelligent enough to recognize that there is no way, as of yet, for science to accept these things and that in the meantime, the findings of science trump speculation and personal experience where they do conflict. The Dalai Lama agrees. If there is a scientific explanation for something, accepting it does not make me, or my life, less "special". Therefore, I would not call someone ignorant for not believing in chakras. I would call someone ignorant for not accepting evolution. You are just stupid. You play games with words as if they are synonymous with reality. I'm done with this conversation.

Originally Posted by User

There is no direct and gradual transition between fossils. The fossil record ascribed to the human past actually reveals no evolution, evolutionists refuse to abandon the idea and continue, whatever the position might be, to tell tall tales of human evolution. Naturally, that approach is not scientifically consistent. This now faith.

No it isn't.

At least attempt to do research before continuing to make yourself look like an ignorant fool: http://evolution.berkeley.edu <-- Start here. If there was no evidence of Evolution, why would it be inferred? What other explanation is there for the fossil record, then? Pretending it doesn't happen/ exist is pretty childish and idiotic.