Elton John: ban organised religion

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Science is fundamentally tied to the natural universe, that universe of energy and matter. If God is supernatural, then science can have nothing to say about God.

I agree but add one more step. If science cannot say anything about God the concept of God is useless and as such should be dismissed as erroneous.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection

I have been claiming things that are basd on science and scientific reasoning, it just goes against a currently accepted limitation of science that I view does not exist (that is that science can dismiss unevidenced nondisprovable claims as false).

But I have just shown you where this is wrong. Why do you hate science?

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It is what makes it science. If you get away from observation and experiment, you get into logic games and philosophy (and theology). Which is not science.

Observation and experimentation are fundamentally critical portions of science. I don't doubt that. However, logic, mathematics and philosophy are critically entwined into science. To cut them out of the picture would give you an incomplete view of science.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You get things like: africans being genetically inferior to caucasions, skull shape determining personality, and even the earth being flat.

Science will always be wrong in some respects. This is not because those scientists were ignorant of scientific philosophy it's because they were imperfect humans dealing with incomplete data and thought within the ideas around them. This will always be true, you will never have a science that isn't at least partially wrong.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
All these things seemed logical (the proper name for what you call scientific reasoning) to some people at some point in time. None of these things was ever scientific.

Incorrect, these were scientific. Just because they were wrong doesn't make them unscientific. Phrenology was based on observation and falsifiability, and eventually it was falsified. It lived by science and died by science.

[Sandman]

I don't keep any bees. No bees whatsoever. In fact, never in my life have I owned any hives or harvested any honey.

Is this total lack of interest in bees actually a kind of beekeeping?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Winston
Hmm, why don't you try arguing the point whether love exists or not, under the same premise that Perfection seems to be so fond of.

I see no reason why love doesn't exist under my system.

Originally posted by aneeshm
But then, by the incompleteness theorem (note again that I don't understand it, I'm still talking out of my arse), if he is neither provable nor unprovable, then he is existent and true!

I fail to see the connection, I do believe you are talking out of your arse.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
But I have just shown you where this is wrong. Why do you hate science?

Argue my points or go away please.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Sandman
I don't keep any bees. No bees whatsoever. In fact, never in my life have I owned any hives or harvested any honey.

Is this total lack of interest in bees actually a kind of beekeeping?

Is this a question for me? I would say no.

[Sandman]

No, it's for the atheism = faith crowd.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Perfection
I see no reason why love doesn't exist under my system.

You cannot render a scientific proof of the existence of neither love nor God. And you know what, it's because they're both entirely detached from the realm of science.

I think you're corrupting both the concept of science and that of God by insisting on tying them together in some way. There is no connection, just as there isn't one between science and the concept of love.

God may exist, or he may not, but which one of the two one chooses to believe in has nothing to do with science. I find it rather curious that anyone would think otherwise.

[Flip McWho]

I agree but add one more step. If science cannot say anything about God the concept of God is useless and as such should be dismissed as erroneous.

I'd have to disagree with the conclusion. If science cannot say anything about something it means simply that. It can say NOTHING about it.

philosophy

Is theology. They're both pretty much the same thing. One just assumes the existence of God and works forward from there.

Science will always be wrong in some respects. This is not because those scientists were ignorant of scientific philosophy it's because they were imperfect humans dealing with incomplete data and thought within the ideas around them.

Replace the word science with religion

This will always be true, you will never have a science that isn't at least partially wrong

Is that because humans can't comprehend the totality of the universe. Is it possible there may exist a being that could?

But then, by the incompleteness theorem (note again that I don't understand it, I'm still talking out of my arse), if he is neither provable nor unprovable, then he is existent and true!

My favourite is the definition argument.
1) God is a perfect being
2) A being that exists is more perfect than a being that doesn't
3) Ergo God exists.
Beat that with your science :P

Incorrect, these were scientific. Just because they were wrong doesn't make them unscientific. Phrenology was based on observation and falsifiability, and eventually it was falsified. It lived by science and died by science.

In a similar vein I reckon that the notion of God will die through theology.




I'd also like to note that all reasoning is the same. Works from premise (evidence/assumption) to conclusion, using logic.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection
Observation and experimentation are fundamentally critical portions of science. I don't doubt that. However, logic, mathematics and philosophy are critically entwined into science. To cut them out of the picture would give you an incomplete view of science.

It is not science without Observation and Experimentation.

If you cut those out, it is no longer science. That is my point, that you call your line of logic/philosophy 'scientific reasoning' when there is nothing that makes it more scientific than creationism.

I gave examples where science (experimentation and observation) was later applied to disprove them. But they were never scientific.. there was ideas (logic/philosophy) but never scientific observation and experimentation applied.

JM

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Darius871


Wouldn't it be more accurate to say agnosticism (conceding that there may or may not be a god, because positive experience and the scientific method cannot necessarily provide a definite answer in either direction) does not depend on faith?

I'm certainly no theist, but the bald-faced assertion that a god must not exist simply because it hasn't been observed certainly sounds like blind faith to me...

I don't think faith is the correct term, although I agree with what you are saying. "Belief" is a more appropriate term IMHO

IE My position is that I am agnostic - I can't say for sure whether a god/s exist or not; however my strong belief is that there is no such thing (along with santa claus, the tooth fairy and spaghetti monsters )

[Jon Miller]

Which is a fine statement, and not positioned on a false basis like Perfection's.

JM
(despite me disagreeing with your beleif)

[Datajack Franit]

ban organised stupidity, and if he really gives a **** about poverty and wars he can use some of his millions to help them

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No you don't. You have to believe that God positively exists. Faith is required to believe that, whereas all you need is a scientific viewpoint to concur with the view that God does not exist.

Therefore, atheism does not depend on faith.

QED

So, you are saying that only those who concur that God does not exist can have a scientific viewpoint?

Also when you say "concur with the view that God does not exist" are you saying "personally holds the view that God does not exist"?

AFAIKT the scientific viewpoint with respect to God would be that it is not scientifically relevant as it is not testable.

Similarily one could hold a scientific viewpoint that the possible existance of an undetectable flying spaghetti monster is not scientifically relevant. It would not be necessary to concur with the view that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

[Arrian]

After a quick skim of the thread:

Aeson

Elton John

The End.

-Arrian