Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you need hints, it follows the same rule. The sentence has all the words with first and last letters in place. The letters in the middle are jumbled. According to “the researcher from Cambridge” you should be able to read it easily. Why can’t you? It follows the exactly same rules. Have I made my point?
You confidently and pompously attack atheism for superficially appearing to be what you are: religious. That’s funny.
lol it is funny./ I often chuckle to myself. I am sure certain brands of atheist are as dangerous as some Fundy theists. They are the exact same type of personalities involved ... broken.
It is silly to waste energy contemplating that for which there is no evidence, and for which the claims it advances are absurd on their face. Science is serious business, and you shouldn’t waste its time with silly theistic nonsense. There’s work to be done. Good rational work. And you’re going to task science with dealing with abject childish insanity like the resurrection and genesis and noah’s ark and young earth flat earth bs? Gtfoh. Honestly...
I have a question. Is it possible that atheists are the next step in human evolution? And its first instantiations are those of us dealing with this craziness. Is it just bad timing that we have been tasked with pulling Arach Angels and his “kind” out of the primorial ooze known as faith? If that is so, I’m pissed off because I should have better things to do. Yet here I am with my coffee on Sunday morning dealing with metaphysical tots in some godforsaken philotheistic nursery school. It’s an outrage !
the problem marc, who decides what is being proven? we know that a biblegod type thing silly. what atheist gets to decide anything they don't like is a sortagod, thus dismissed?
but thats not question.
why would people want to stop science from being used in religion and spirituality? Is hear say the most reasonable way to address this issue?
Because you feel its a waste of time? does that sound reasonable?
the problem marc, who decides what is being proven? we know that a biblegod type thing silly. what atheist gets to decide anything they don't like is a sortagod, thus dismissed?
but thats not question.
why would people want to stop science from being used in religion and spirituality? Is hear say the most reasonable way to address this issue?
Because you feel its a waste of time? does that sound reasonable?
It is a demonstrable waste of time to believe or entertain a claim that is provided without sufficient evidentiary warrant. There is no scientific approach to this, because you are starting from whim. The first step in a scientific approach would be observation. And we have nothing to observe.
It is a demonstrable waste of time to believe or entertain a claim that is provided without sufficient evidentiary warrant. There is no scientific approach to this, because you are starting from whim. The first step in a scientific approach would be observation. And we have nothing to observe.
that's actually not true. we have a lot observe. how do we compare claims? just ignore them?
how about this. claims that offer explanations, mechanism, make predictions, and are repeatable are more valid than ones that don't?
The first step in a scientific approach would be observation.
Well, strictly speaking, the first step in a scientific approach is probably a null hypothesis, a position one would take that contradicts perceived observations.
No. You have observed no God. So you can stop right there and move on to what you have actually observed. Then apply the scientific method to that.
It’s not even necessary or desirable to get to the stage of making a claim when there is nothing in evidence to be the subject of a claim.
actually I never observed a Biblegod, korangod, or Jewishgod, or hindugod. I haven't observed some of the tribal stuff either. I haven't look into every type of god, tho. But I see nothing that points to any magic.
we have people offering evidence all the time. how do we compare them? who decides if its a god thing or not? or too close to a god thing for comfort and must be dismissed?
actually I never observed a Biblegod, korangod, or Jewishgod, or hindugod. I haven't observed some of the tribal stuff either. I haven't look into every type of god, tho. But I see nothing that points to any magic.
we have people offering evidence all the time. how do we compare them? who decides if its a god thing or not? or too close to a god thing for comfort and must be dismissed?
Then, in one sentence, what is the "something else" you are talking about?
It is a demonstrable waste of time to believe or entertain a claim that is provided without sufficient evidentiary warrant. There is no scientific approach to this, because you are starting from whim. The first step in a scientific approach would be observation. And we have nothing to observe.
You have nothing to observe because you have arbitrarily and capriciously walled off our entire Reality from consideration as God. Your preference for Nature or Universe or Multiverse etc. precludes evaluating the existing observations as evidence of God. That is entirely capricious and unscientific.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!
