The Decline of Christianity in the West

[bhsmte]

I'm fully aware that proponents think there is enough evidence. That goes without saying. There are countless objections, holes in the theory, which go ignored by the scientific community constantly, and those who raise objections are soon ousted from ever doing anything in the realm of science again. This sounds decisively cultish to me.

Well, lets just put it this way.

The Phd biologists (some of whom are Christian) forget more about this stuff then you or I will ever know and they disagree with you.

In fact, the majority of Christians now accept the theory of evolution as being true.

Your position is based on a personal theology, their position is based on objective evidence.

Let's see, which one could be more reliable?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here, again, is the silliness of science. What you are saying is, paraphrased,

"Using my system, which inherently doesn't allow for anything supernatural to be proven, and nothing else, you must prove the supernatural, else I win."

I hope everyone else can see how silly that is.

No, it's not silly to demand supportive evidence for claims about real-world phenomena. It's what science is about.

 

[bhsmte]

That seems to be what the atheists here want it to mean. But then again, abortion advocates want to be called proponents of "women's reproductive health rights," too.

If you can prove that atheism is more than what a person does not believe, go ahead, we will wait patiently.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Well, lets just put it this way.

The Phd biologists (some of whom are Christian) forget more about this stuff then you or I will ever know and they disagree with you.

In fact, the majority of Christians now accept the theory of evolution as being true.

Your position is based on a personal theology, their position is based on objective evidence.

Let's see, which one could be more reliable?

Their position is based on a system which disregards an entire realm of possibility and then asks that said realm be proven according to the system.

The majority of Christians didn't accept this until it was mandatory in schools to undermine personal religion.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

No, it's not silly to demand supportive evidence for claims about real-world phenomena. It's what science is about.

It is exactly silly, for the reasons I demonstrated and you ignored. It is hypocritical to set up a system which disregards a possibility before it is even considered and then asks that the possibility be proven under that flawed system.

 

[bhsmte]

Here, again, is the silliness of science. What you are saying is, paraphrased,

"Using my system, which inherently doesn't allow for anything supernatural to be proven, and nothing else, you must prove the supernatural, else I win."

I hope everyone else can see how silly that is.

Is someone stopping you from believing in whatever supernatural entity you choose to?

You are asking for science to acknowledge your supernatural entity and could you explain how science should do so and still follow the scientific method?

 

[BornAgainBrian]

If you can prove that atheism is more than what a person does not believe, go ahead, we will wait patiently.

Atheism: The doctrine that there is no deity.

Doctrine: A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All of society was built on people who kicked anyone out who questioned them?

This makes no sense.
If einstein didn't question newtonian physics, we wouldn't know about relativity. Every big name in science is someone who turned his field upside down. A scientist gains dame and glory by proving his peers to be wrong... not by upholding the status quo.

Progress in science is only accomplished by challenging currently held beliefs.
Off course, it can't be an empty challenge (= without evidence).

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Is someone stopping you from believing in whatever supernatural entity you choose to?

No, they're trying to force children to hear that such belief is wrong.

You are asking for science to acknowledge your supernatural entity and could you explain how science should do so and still follow the scientific method?

It is the very scientific method which doesn't allow for anything supernatural that is flawed. I'm not saying it doesn't have good things to offer, just that it is flawed when it makes such an enormous presupposition.

 

[bhsmte]

It is exactly silly, for the reasons I demonstrated and you ignored. It is hypocritical to set up a system which disregards a possibility before it is even considered and then asks that the possibility be proven under that flawed system.

You are really exposing yourself here and your ignorance of how science works and why it needs to work the way it does.

I guess, if you were seriously ill and went to your doctor, you would ask him to explore which supernatural treatments were available to cure your illness.

 

[bhsmte]

No, they're trying to force children to hear that such belief is wrong.



It is the very scientific method which doesn't allow for anything supernatural that is flawed. I'm not saying it doesn't have good things to offer, just that it is flawed when it makes such an enormous presupposition.

Tell us exactly why science is flawed, by not being able to detect your supernatural entity?

 

[BornAgainBrian]

This makes no sense.
If einstein didn't question newtonian physics, we wouldn't know about relativity. Every big name in science is someone who turned his field upside down. A scientist gains dame and glory by proving his peers to be wrong... not by upholding the status quo.

Progress in science is only accomplished by challenging currently held beliefs.
Off course, it can't be an empty challenge (= without evidence).

Take a gander at "Expelled". These are real people who were kicked out for simply trying to shake the status quo a bit. This theory is held so dear that any challenge is dismissed before even being considered. There are hundreds of books putting forth holes in this theory and asking that they be explained, and so far I have yet to see much other than empty insults.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is exactly silly, for the reasons I demonstrated and you ignored. It is hypocritical to set up a system which disregards a possibility before it is even considered and then asks that the possibility be proven under that flawed system.

I ignore it cause it's nonsense.
Science is neutral to the supernatural.

Science is empirical. Supernatural beliefs are in the realm of religion.
We can't help it that the empirical data doesn't fit in your faith based beliefs.

We can't change the facts. But we can change our beliefs to include the facts. Those who don't are willfully ignorant.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Tell us exactly why science is flawed, by not being able to detect your supernatural entity?

Science dismisses the belief of the majority of the world that there is such thing as the supernatural. They do this because they've set up a system which, by its own rules, doesn't allow for the supernatural to be proven, and then comes and says since it can't be proven under this system which doesn't allow it to be proven, it must not exist.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

I ignore it cause it's nonsense.
Science is neutral to the supernatural.

Science is empirical. Supernatural beliefs are in the realm of religion.
We can't help it that the empirical data doesn't fit in your faith based beliefs.

We can't change the facts. But we can change our beliefs to include the facts. Those who don't are willfully ignorant.

Those who don't understand that the scientific method falls short of actually trying to find truth... it merely tries to find truth under its own flawed rules.

Your random "You're ignorant if you don't believe as I do" shouts do little to help.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheism: The doctrine that there is no deity.

Doctrine: A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true.

Atheism is lack of belief, not a set of beliefs.

Nice try though.

If you don't believe bigfoot exists, does that give you a set of beliefs?

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Atheism is lack of belief, not a set of beliefs.

Nice try though.

If you don't believe bigfoot exists, does that give you a set of beliefs?

Atheism, by definition, is the hardened belief that there is no deity. If you tell other people that you are an atheist, then that's what they are going to think you mean, because that's what the word means.

If believe strongly that bigfoot absolutely does not exist, that is a belief I have.

 

[bhsmte]

Those who don't understand that the scientific method falls short of actually trying to find truth... it merely tries to find truth under its own flawed rules.

Your random "You're ignorant if you don't believe as I do" shouts do little to help.

Ok, it is clear to me now.

You must believe what you say is true, because your fundamentalist belief structure is wholly reliant on it being true and you must protect it at all costs.

Have fun with trying to convince people, you can destroy well evidenced science, that most Christians already agree with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Take a gander at "Expelled".

These are real people who were kicked out for simply trying to shake the status quo a bit.

With religious claims. Why would any scientist care about that?

I support the firing of people who do a bad job.
Someone who tries to inject faith-based claims in evdence-based science has no place in science.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

With religious claims. Why would any scientist care about that?

I support the firing of people who do a bad job.
Someone who tries to inject faith-based claims in evdence-based science has no place in science.

Who is trying to protect their beliefs at all costs now? Seems like anyone trying to show that another person might be right is removed immediately. That is what I meant by cultish.