Atheism and Health

[Clizby WampusCat]

The only hope for anyone, to know the truth,
is to seek the truth and to keep seeking the truth, as the Creator says.

To listen to all the other voices, even one other voice, instead,

leaves people lost and going the wrong direction - to desruction.

More deepities. I follow the evidence and seek truth, that is why I am no longer a christian.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Read the post again.

I did, I backup my statement unless you actually want to engage in a discussion and tell me what I have wrong.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How can you possibly judge others beliefs to be false when they are using the same reasoning you are to determine their beliefs in God. Show me your beliefs are reasonably true with sufficient evidence. That is all I am asking.

The Living Creator Who gave you and me and all people life,
gave us His Word,
and sacrificed His Son Jesus in crucifixion,
for my sins and for your sins, whosoever believes in Him, to have eternal life.

Whoever (anyone) who trusts Jesus, as God Says, has LIFE !
Whoever (anyone) who does not trust Jesus, has NOT LIFE.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

More deepities. I follow the evidence and seek truth, that is why I am no longer a christian.

Getting this far in your life, free from the false Christians you mention/post about/ even knowing true from false, is one necessary step, good.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I did, I backup my statement unless you actually want to engage in a discussion and tell me what I have wrong.

You did not reply to what the post says.

Effectively, on purpose or not, you misquoted it then replied to something different.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

(see bottom two quotes mostly)

The Almighty, one True God, notes that whatever a person serves and believes, is their god.
Thus, whatever it is you serve and believe, that is your god.
True, your god won't save your soul nor spirit, but it is still your god.

So you are admitting that God cannot convince me that he exists. OK, that is not a very powerful God at all. I am convinced my evidence he can supply that if he likes.

I did for 18 years. Led me to be an atheist when I really looked at the evidence.

(who did you listen to when looking for evidence - both about what you left, and about what you went to) ?

God NEVER said He is Willing to convince you that He exists.
When raised for judgment, no one will need to convince you,
and it will be too late.

Wow, so God refuses to provide enough evidence to convince me he exists then damns me to hell for not believing he exists. And this is a god god?

Read the post again.

Everyone starts out condemned in sin and trespasses. On that you had no choice in the matter.
God provides enough evidence and provides for atonement and salvation for everyone who believes.
(yes, even for you)
He did not have to do so.
For anyone.
Yet He did.

He provided all that is needed.

You chose not to believe, continuing therefor in the sin and transgressions everyone is born in - and doomed. For UNBELIEF.

Sexual sins are particularly difficult to be free from , like alcoholism and idolatry.

If anyone is unwilling to repent, God does not make them repent. They simply perish.

The choice not to repent is completely theirs (and others might be judged also, very severely, if they convinced someone not to repent, like in the false gospels present/posted daily on this forum)

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The Living Creator Who gave you and me and all people life,
gave us His Word,
and sacrificed His Son Jesus in crucifixion,
for my sins and for your sins, whosoever believes in Him, to have eternal life.

Whoever (anyone) who trusts Jesus, as God Says, has LIFE !
Whoever (anyone) who does not trust Jesus, has NOT LIFE.

I want evidence not preaching.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You did not reply to what the post says.

Effectively, on purpose or not, you misquoted it then replied to something different.

Nope. If you want to discuss the quote fine. I am not interested in accusations that are unsupported to bicker about.

You don't have good evidence that god exists, if you did you would have presented it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I want evidence not preaching.

Both are and were available for years to you.

You bailed.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

(see bottom two quotes mostly)



(who did you listen to when looking for evidence - both about what you left, and about what you went to) ?

I educated myself on epistemology and good reasoning skills. I di dnot listen to anyone.

Everyone starts out condemned in sin and trespasses. On that you had no choice in the matter.
God provides enough evidence and provides for atonement and salvation for everyone who believes.
(yes, even for you)
He did not have to do so.
For anyone.
Yet He did.

This is just unsupported preaching.

He provided all that is needed.

If he did then I would be convinced. So no, he has not provided me all I need to believe he exists. That is demonstrable unless you think I am lying.

You chose not to believe, continuing therefor in the sin and transgressions everyone is born in - and doomed. For UNBELIEF.

This is a lie but you must disparage me to keep believing your dogma. I understand. No one can choose not to believe something they are convinced is true. You have avoided this statement of mine many times now. Can you choose not to believe the earth is ball shaped?

Sexual sins are particularly difficult to be free from , like alcoholism and idolatry.

If anyone is unwilling to repent, God does not make them repent. They simply perish.

The choice not to repent is completely theirs (and others might be judged also, very severely, if they convinced someone not to repent, like in the false gospels present/posted daily on this forum)

I did repent and believed for 18 years. I believed like you do now. It seems god will or can not convince me he exists. This is the bottom line. If he could and wanted to I would have no choice but to believe that he exists.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Both are and were available for years to you.

You bailed.

Like I said, no one can choose not to believe something they are convinced of. Will you respond to this statement or just keep ignoring it.

 

[jayem]

I'm just speaking for myself: I cannot truthfully and sincerely have faith in something that every fiber of my being tells me is largely make believe. I've always been this way. Even as a child, deep down, I had a strong feeling that the stories I was taught in Bible school were fairy tales. And I don't just reject the Abrahamic god. As my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I can't make myself believe in any god, or anything claimed to be supernatural. The Bible alludes to this. Paul says that to the natural man, things of the spirit are foolishness. I would say it's how my mind works. I think there is some evidence that the brains of non-religious/non-theistic people process information differently. But otherwise, we are individuals, just like everyone is. And we should be judged as such. Non-believers can be just as happy, healthy, productive, and ethical as anyone else.

The Bible also says faith is a gift. If that's true, then I haven't been given that gift. Think about it...if the supposedly omniscient Bible God really exists, how would it please him if I claimed to believe, but really had overwhelming doubts? Wouldn't God know I'm pretending?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think there is some evidence that the brains of non-religious/non-theistic people process information differently.

I don't think this argument can be validly made. Here is an excellent review article on neuroscience and religion, if you are interested:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-009-0261-3

Non-believers can be just as happy, healthy, productive, and ethical as anyone else.

In general though (not anecdotally), they are less happy and less healthy. I would also argue less ethical and productive: the latter as consequence of the other 3 factors; though the former depends on my axiomatic positions on morality, what is meant by ethical and the ilk, so is a whole philosophic argument itself.

I'm just speaking for myself: I cannot truthfully and sincerely have faith in something that every fiber of my being tells me is largely make believe. I've always been this way. Even as a child, deep down, I had a strong feeling that the stories I was taught in Bible school were fairy tales. And I don't just reject the Abrahamic god. As my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I can't make myself believe in any god, or anything claimed to be supernatural. The Bible alludes to this. Paul says that to the natural man, things of the spirit are foolishness. I would say it's how my mind works. I think there is some evidence that the brains of non-religious/non-theistic people process information differently. But otherwise, we are individuals, just like everyone is. And we should be judged as such. Non-believers can be just as happy, healthy, productive, and ethical as anyone else.

The Bible also says faith is a gift. If that's true, then I haven't been given that gift. Think about it...if the supposedly omniscient Bible God really exists, how would it please him if I claimed to believe, but really had overwhelming doubts? Wouldn't God know I'm pretending?

Look, about 20 years ago I would have been in wholehearted agreement. I was a dyed in the wool atheist back in the day, and I never believed any of the religious stories either. I sincerely could not fathom belief. Nowadays though, I am singing a different tune.

It is presumptious to assume that some people are just born unable to have faith. The fact that the percentages of non-religious people fluctuate in the population, and thoroughly religious people become atheists and vice versa, shows there are people that this is clearly not the case. I would argue more for a learned response, a way of nurture or adressing the qualia of experience, is at play here. This is why the emphasis on empiricism following the Enlightenment also saw an upswing in non-religion and secularism. No one is a natural empiricist, as has been shown in infant and child studies - it is learned. Coupled to this the overwhelming religiosity of humans historically, and the very real neuro-cognitive effects of religion and neural plasticity, there is simply little basis to assume someone is simply unable to have faith. Certainly it is harder for some than others, but the Christian argument is that you are not doing so alone, but with help, with grace bestowed.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The theory can be derived and can be supported by demonstration. It is not a pragmatic approach but an evidenced based approach.

When using the term 'evidence-based', you are encoding post-postivism and the paradigm of Archie Cochrane and Gordon Guyatt, as in Evidence-Based Medicine or Patient Blood Management systems. That system is emphatically deductive from data, from evidence. What you would term so is inductive scientific reasoning. So no, it most assuredly is not evidence-based at all. An hypothesis is derived and then tested for falsifiability and repeatability - it is based on inductive reasoning, not data, as most scientific musings are a series of nested hypotheses dependant one upon the other. On Evidence-Based means though, religion is most assuredly associated with good health and better reported wellbeing.

You say you need better evidence, but the question is what you mean by evidence? Already you are confusing inductive scientific method with evidence-based practice, and the two are incompatible in many ways. It is not that evidence of God is lacking, but that you fail to consider it evidence as such. It depends what framework you use to evaluate, whether you would see it as such. The health benefits of religious practice, along with its near universal presence in humans, seems quite good evidence for God in my mind, though of course not absolute - seeing that no evidence ever is.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

When using the term 'evidence-based', you are encoding post-postivism and the paradigm of Archie Cochrane and Gordon Guyatt, as in Evidence-Based Medicine or Patient Blood Management systems. That system is emphatically deductive from data, from evidence. What you would term so is inductive scientific reasoning. So no, it most assuredly is not evidence-based at all. An hypothesis is derived and then tested for falsifiability and repeatability - it is based on inductive reasoning, not data, as most scientific musings are a series of nested hypotheses dependant one upon the other. On Evidence-Based means though, religion is most assuredly associated with good health and better reported wellbeing.

You took my quote a little out of context. I was specifically talking about the theory of flight. What I was saying is that we can derive equations, models, evidence and create an hypothesis based on these things and then test it, try to falsify it. But when planes actually do fly as we predicted, that is good evidence that we were correct. It is not certain that we are correct but sufficient evidence to believe we are correct. Everything in science is tentative waiting new evidence.

You say you need better evidence, but the question is what you mean by evidence? Already you are confusing inductive scientific method with evidence-based practice, and the two are incompatible in many ways. It is not that evidence of God is lacking, but that you fail to consider it evidence as such. It depends what framework you use to evaluate, whether you would see it as such. The health benefits of religious practice, along with its near universal presence in humans, seems quite good evidence for God in my mind, though of course not absolute - seeing that no evidence ever is.

I acknowledge that there is evidence for a god. But all evidences are not the same. 100 bad evidences does not add up to one good piece of evidence. The evidence that you claim that theist people have better health and well being may be true, I don't know, but that is not very good evidence for a gods existence by itself if it is true.

I don't know how the study was done that you are referring to but this 2019 PEW research study has these conclusions:

Actively religious people are more likely than their less-religious peers to describe themselves as “very happy” in about half of the countries surveyed. Sometimes the gaps are striking: In the U.S., for instance, 36% of the actively religious describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with 25% of the inactively religious and 25% of the unaffiliated. Notable happiness gaps among these groups also exist in Japan, Australia and Germany.

Also,

There is not a clear connection between religiosity and the likelihood that people will describe themselves as being in “very good” overall health. Even after controlling for factors that might affect the results, such as age, income and gender, there are only three countries out of the 26 where the actively religious are likely to report better health than everyone else — the U.S., Taiwan and Mexico. Religiously active people also don’t seem to be any healthier by two other, more specific measures: obesity and frequency of exercise.

So religious people will describe themselves as happier but better health does not seem to correlate in this study.

In the end this is one piece of evidence that cannot be taken alone, it must be looked at with other evidences as well. Remember that just because something explains something does not mean it is true. There are many explanations for all phenomena, we just need to try to find the correct explanation.

What are your best evidences for gods existence?

 

[Larniavc]

Firstly, consider what is meant by Health. Generally, we are healthy or something is healthy or in a state of health, when it is free of disease; or does not predispose or helps prevent disease or a pathological state. It is thus defined by what it is not. Humans have a wide variance of functioning though, so we have to assume an Ideal Man as it were. However to define this in practice, we have to take a bell curve and take cut-offs for the mean thereof - assuming that the high and low are both predisposing to something not within what we see as desirable.

So for instance, with blood pressure we know hypertension leads to strokes and infarcts, and low pressure is associated with shock and syncopal events. However, normal functioning for some people might be on the high end, even if in the long run, that might be harmful. Hence we assume a 'normal' blood pressure which we are aiming at, which seems to be the general state in man.

Now most medical diseases and such, work in like manner - especially Chronic ones. When an hypertensive has high blood pressure, this is usually secondary to something - an excessive sodium load or overcome renal vascular occlusion say, though often we don't actually know and term it idiopathic. For that person, it is 'normal' though, how his body's homeostasis works, but is unhealthy when measured against our concept of Health, an hypothetical ideal.

So let us review Atheism by these criteria. Clearly it is not the norm for humans, as universally all cultures have some form of religious belief historically. So already we are dealing with an outlier. Now hyper-religiosity is also used as a symptom of mental illness, but that is because it is one that is highly sensitive to being picked up - someone declares themselves a prophet or so. A hyper-atheism on this same spectrum of belief, would not have any overt symptoms beyond perhaps denying religion or maybe a lack of tolerance toward it. So its sensitivity is low as a symptom. Atheists though, are over-represented in mental health care use, and religion is protective. Numerous studies have demonstrated that religion is positively correlated with better mental, as well as physical, health. For instance:

Religion, Health, and Psychological Well-Being
Religion and health: Is there an association, is it valid, and is it causal? - ScienceDirect
Religious and Spiritual Factors in Depression: Review and Integration of the Research

Non-Religion is associated with poorer mental health outcomes. Beyond that, religious people tend to be healthier in general than their peers of the same diet, lifestyle and socio-economic class who are not. While clear causality has not been demonstrated beyond doubt, the correlation is definite, though a specific physiological mechanism for it has not been found, and psychological theories tend to cluster around ideas of 'certainty' or so, but even there, people with religious affiliation and strong devotion to their religious practices, outperform all on health parameters.

Secularity, religiosity, and health: Physical and mental health differences between atheists, agnostics, and nonaffiliated theists compared to religiously affiliated individuals - ScienceDirect
The Benefits of Religious Fundamentalism

To return to what is Healthy then, Atheism and non-religion clearly have worse ourcomes on measurable health factors and use of medical services. It is also not a natural position for humans to take, as the vast majority of humans throughout history have been religious. We are thus forced to conclude that it is an outlier on human functioning with potential factors predisposing to disease or undesirable outcomes, and our Ideal Man, our hypothetical examplar of health, would be religious.

What of Disease though? A disease is something which produces specific symptoms or a syndromic association of symptoms, that negatively affect health. It is defined by taking factors that deviate from the norm, and to cluster them together, as in my above example of Hypertension or associated sequalae like strokes. A lot hedges on definitions here, but the argument to label Atheism and Non-Religion unhealthy is strong; but are these symptoms of a presumably mental illness, or merely a predisposing malady such as being born with a less effective gene, or unhealthy human behaviour like smoking or a sedentary lifestyle? The argument to label it a disease itself can even be made, but of course, that hedges on what is termed desirable - if we cannot agree on basic desirable outcomes, then all bets are off, such can be seen with transgenderism vs gender identity disorder.

However, being religious is in general better for you. Sure, every now and then we'd have people going off the rails and declaring themself to be God or so, but in like manner, we have people with brittle bone diseases or the ilk, in which healthy exercise would be deleterious.

Encouraging Theism, and more than that, strong devotion, would be a public health benefit. Functionally, trying to advance atheism is akin to encouraging someone to take up smoking or to not have their kids vaccinated.


End Note: Nowadays it is difficult to assess these clearly, so read studies with care. For instance, a US study found the population of atheists they studied (which tends to be younger) to have better dietary practices and be more active, so consequently were 'healthier' than the more sedentary and older religious group. This is why meta-analyses and trying to correct for confounding factors are so important, on questions such as these.
Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members

Further to note, most studies are done in the WEIRD countries (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic), so the religious populations we are talking about, tend to be mostly Christian, with some Jews and Buddhists and Hindus vs the modern expansion of atheism and non-religiously affiliated, which may be a confounding factor.

Which positive social contact is NOT correlated with positive mental and physical health outcomes?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You took my quote a little out of context. I was specifically talking about the theory of flight. What I was saying is that we can derive equations, models, evidence and create an hypothesis based on these things and then test it, try to falsify it. But when planes actually do fly as we predicted, that is good evidence that we were correct. It is not certain that we are correct but sufficient evidence to believe we are correct. Everything in science is tentative waiting new evidence.

So not based on evidence then, but supported by it in a pragmatic way, in that it is not falsified and repeatable. Which was my point. Flight is an excellent example, as we can't fully describe how planes fly. Both Bernoulli's principle and Newton's third law are substantially wanting, although we can describe mathematically the conditions under which it occurs. So it is not that we tentatively affirm it, but that we know it is wrong in some way. Similarly in physics in general, where Relativity and quantum theory are largely exclusive, necessitating a search for a unified one. It is just that these are best supported by our current observations, what used to be termed 'Saves the Appearances', so it is largely a pragmatic stance with a proviso that we are probably wrong in various ways, rather than we are tentatively right about things. That is part of the reason why Scientific Method focuses on falsifiability.

I acknowledge that there is evidence for a god. But all evidences are not the same. 100 bad evidences does not add up to one good piece of evidence. The evidence that you claim that theist people have better health and well being may be true, I don't know, but that is not very good evidence for a gods existence by itself if it is true.

I don't know how the study was done that you are referring to but this 2019 PEW research study has these conclusions:

Actively religious people are more likely than their less-religious peers to describe themselves as “very happy” in about half of the countries surveyed. Sometimes the gaps are striking: In the U.S., for instance, 36% of the actively religious describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with 25% of the inactively religious and 25% of the unaffiliated. Notable happiness gaps among these groups also exist in Japan, Australia and Germany.

Also,

There is not a clear connection between religiosity and the likelihood that people will describe themselves as being in “very good” overall health. Even after controlling for factors that might affect the results, such as age, income and gender, there are only three countries out of the 26 where the actively religious are likely to report better health than everyone else — the U.S., Taiwan and Mexico. Religiously active people also don’t seem to be any healthier by two other, more specific measures: obesity and frequency of exercise.

So religious people will describe themselves as happier but better health does not seem to correlate in this study.

In the end this is one piece of evidence that cannot be taken alone, it must be looked at with other evidences as well. Remember that just because something explains something does not mean it is true. There are many explanations for all phenomena, we just need to try to find the correct explanation.

What are your best evidences for gods existence?

Well, this isn't from one study - it is hundreds of studies over the last century. Hence the review articles you'll find in the OP.

My 'best evidence' requires us to agree on a standard of what constitutes stronger vs weaker. I very much doubt we do. But that is not the object of this thread, which is about the empirically supported, and evidence-based, fact that religion is associated with better health. I would assume we agree that the data accrued by Western Medicine is at least valid.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So not based on evidence then, but supported by it in a pragmatic way, in that it is not falsified and repeatable. Which was my point. Flight is an excellent example, as we can't fully describe how planes fly.

This is not true. We know why plans fly, we not know everything about it to 100% certainty but that does not mean we don't have mountains of evidence that verify why planes fly. We also have not falsifies the theory of flight. Science does not try to find certainty, they find the best models based on evidence until further evidence may change our understanding of reality. Scientists try to falsify what we think is true, when they cannot it becomes more certain but in no way does science get to 100% certainty.

Both Bernoulli's principle and Newton's third law are substantially wanting, although we can describe mathematically the conditions under which it occurs. So it is not that we tentatively affirm it, but that we know it is wrong in some way.

You seem to want to claim that since we cannot know anything to 100% certainty we cannot have high confidence in what we do know. This is simply wrong.

Similarly in physics in general, where Relativity and quantum theory are largely exclusive, necessitating a search for a unified one. It is just that these are best supported by our current observations, what used to be termed 'Saves the Appearances', so it is largely a pragmatic stance with a proviso that we are probably wrong in various ways, rather than we are tentatively right about things. That is part of the reason why Scientific Method focuses on falsifiability.

I tend to agree with this but as I have said the more we try to falsify hypothesis and theories and cannot the more confidence we have that it is true. Evolution is a good example.

Well, this isn't from one study - it is hundreds of studies over the last century. Hence the review articles you'll find in the OP.

I don't really care if that fact is true, I doubt it, but I have not studied it. But that does not matter. It is not sufficient evidence to claim a god exists even if it is true.

My 'best evidence' requires us to agree on a standard of what constitutes stronger vs weaker. I very much doubt we do. But that is not the object of this thread, which is about the empirically supported, and evidence-based, fact that religion is associated with better health. I would assume we agree that the data accrued by Western Medicine is at least valid.

I will grant you for the time being that this fact is true. How is this good evidence that god exists?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is not true. We know why plans fly, we not know everything about it to 100% certainty but that does not mean we don't have mountains of evidence that verify why planes fly. We also have not falsifies the theory of flight. Science does not try to find certainty, they find the best models based on evidence until further evidence may change our understanding of reality. Scientists try to falsify what we think is true, when they cannot it becomes more certain but in no way does science get to 100% certainty.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

I think I have found the problem here. You seem to be using 'evidence' interchangeably with words like data or observation. Evidence requires a framework to mean anything. A bloody knife is just a knife until placed in a framework of a murder. So Evidence Based Medicine is based on the deductive necessary and valid conclusions drawn from data. Scientific method however is an inductive methodology, meaning that it is not necessarily so nor must it be sound. Science creates models based on observations, but this is not evidence itself. If it is not falsified by further testing, this is evidence in its favour, but that only makes it a stronger argument, but does not show it ultimately sound. So back to my original point, not evidence-based, no.

You seem to want to claim that since we cannot know anything to 100% certainty we cannot have high confidence in what we do know. This is simply wrong.

Never said anything remotely close to this. I am in fact the one arguing for Evidence-Based empiric data in this thread. However as per what we are talking about, we know our explanation for heavier than air flight is not complete, and in all likelihood substantially wrong in some way. This does not mean we can't have confidence. I fly all the time, and I trust the aerodynamics is probably fine, but you mustn't confuse utility with 'knowing things'. I would suggest you read up a bit about how scientific method actually works and its epistemologic grounding.

I tend to agree with this but as I have said the more we try to falsify hypothesis and theories and cannot the more confidence we have that it is true. Evolution is a good example.

Science cannot show anything true, as you seem to know. To make the jump from scientifically sound to true is largely a leap of faith. We have been on wild goose chases for years, with more and more confidence, till everything crumbled - think of Phlogiston, or Newtonian Mechanics for that matter. I find it hard to believe we aren't on one now, probably in several fields.

I don't really care if that fact is true, I doubt it, but I have not studied it. But that does not matter. It is not sufficient evidence to claim a god exists even if it is true.

Then why are you on a thread that is about that fact? I never argued it proves God.

I will grant you for the time being that this fact is true. How is this good evidence that god exists?

Again, something can only be 'good evidence' if we agree on a standard to measure against. Your standard seems to constitute some form of empiricism and materialism, but your epistemology escapes me, partly due to your hopeless muddling of evidence, data and observation, I'd wager. You'd need to give me more information.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

I think I have found the problem here. You seem to be using 'evidence' interchangeably with words like data or observation. Evidence requires a framework to mean anything. A bloody knife is just a knife until placed in a framework of a murder. So Evidence Based Medicine is based on the deductive necessary and valid conclusions drawn from data. Scientific method however is an inductive methodology, meaning that it is not necessarily so nor must it be sound. Science creates models based on observations, but this is not evidence itself. If it is not falsified by further testing, this is evidence in its favour, but that only makes it a stronger argument, but does not show it ultimately sound. So back to my original point, not evidence-based, no.

I mostly agree with this. But again, you seem to be caught up on the fact that we cannot have 100% certainty and that is somehow giving excessive doubt to knowledge.

Never said anything remotely close to this. I am in fact the one arguing for Evidence-Based empiric data in this thread. However as per what we are talking about, we know our explanation for heavier than air flight is not complete, and in all likelihood substantially wrong in some way. This does not mean we can't have confidence. I fly all the time, and I trust the aerodynamics is probably fine, but you mustn't confuse utility with 'knowing things'. I would suggest you read up a bit about how scientific method actually works and its epistemologic grounding.

I disagree that our knowledge of how flight works is "substantially wrong". I have said here many times that science does not talk about absolute certainty.

Science cannot show anything true, as you seem to know. To make the jump from scientifically sound to true is largely a leap of faith. We have been on wild goose chases for years, with more and more confidence, till everything crumbled - think of Phlogiston, or Newtonian Mechanics for that matter. I find it hard to believe we aren't on one now, probably in several fields.

Yes and it was more science that discovered these wrong. One piece of data does not make a theory. Evolution is supported by many different areas of science and has never been falsified to a point that it needs to be thrown out. There is so much evidence for evolution that we consider it a fact.

Then why are you on a thread that is about that fact? I never argued it proves God.

You think it is good evidence for god. I disagree.

Again, something can only be 'good evidence' if we agree on a standard to measure against. Your standard seems to constitute some form of empiricism and materialism, but your epistemology escapes me, partly due to your hopeless muddling of evidence, data and observation, I'd wager. You'd need to give me more information.

Everyone has a different standard of evidence for belief in anything. We differ our standards of evidence based on what we are talking about as well. You say that you have a dog named Fred, I will believe you without much more evidence, you say a god exists I will require a higher standard of evidence for that. So the standard changes based on the topic.