Thread Arrogant Prick the former Pig.
- Thread starter Atan Nolme
- Start date
I think that if 2 people are arguing and neither of them is especially offended by what the other says, no one should be banned. Having said that it's not my forum so whatevs.
No, it doesn't. No scientific methods have been used to prove said likelihoods. It's all conjecture. Assigning a probability value to a belief based on subjective ideas does not equal scientific evidence.
oh I'm very fucking offended by you trying to hide behind science to claim there's "almost certainly" no afterlife when no evidence supports that claim. taking science's name in vain is incredibly goddamn offensive
Dawkins used scientific methods re: the God question. You probably know that and will call him not a proper scientist, but whatever. You clearly have a strong belief in the afterlife and are therefore trying to hide behind 'science can't definitely prove there isn't one'. Sigh.
Science and religion do not mix, son. You can't prove something to people that believe in make believe. It's scientifically impossible.
I love you, Kiwi. You're so tolerant of us assholes. True.
Science can never disprove the existence of God. It may only cast doubt. Hypotheses must prove something. It's logically impossible to prove nonexistence.
That said, the burden of proving the existence of God is up to those who seek him. Good luck.
No, he didn't. What he used was based on subjective arguments of logic, which are all well and dandy but they are not scientific evidence and far from "scientific fact" as you put it.
no, I don't have a belief in the afterlife
I do have a belief in not bastardizing the scientific method by applying it to shit that by definition it's incapable of exploring.Yes of course, and note that I never wrote 'science has proven God does not exist'. However it is possible to prove that the likelihood of God existing is extremely small.
Maybe people don't like the use of the word 'prove' here. Maybe I should say "God is exceedingly unlikely to exist according to science. So is the afterlife". Therefore it's not an irrational 'belief' to state there is no God or afterlife.
you people are insane
I'm a fucking atheist in every sense of the word. I have a set of dog tags with Pastafarian as my religious preference. christ at cracker barrel, just because I'm calling him out on his gross misuse of the phrase "scientific fact" doesn't make me a godsdamn bible thumper
No, he didn't. What he used was based on subjective arguments of logic, which are all well and dandy but they are not scientific evidence and far from "scientific fact" as you put it.
no, I don't have a belief in the afterlife
Hmm I'll have to re-read 'The God Delusion'
I am no scientist but I believe it was based on empirical methods. Oh yeah and "shit that by definition it's incapable of exploring" - what the hell is that supposed to mean? Hundreds of years ago, most people probably thought science was incapable of exploring the origin of the universe - as it was a mysterious process enacted by God. I think that people/groups define certain things as being 'incapable of being solved or looked into by science' as a way of stopping their dogmatic beliefs being questioned.
you said
Unless you have a really lousy understanding of the word "fact", stfu. It's not possible to prove said likelihood because the idea of a god or any supernatural deity is, by definition, superfuckingnatural. Science can only examine the natural world and the whole idea behind a supreme being is that he/she/it/they set the rules, including the ones that determine whether or not we can prove or disprove their existence.
I don't like you misusing "according to science" because it's a crock full of shit and you have no goddamn clue what you're talking about. Stay away from science; you don't understand it.
So you're saying that even the most intelligent scientific geniuses cannot come up with any kind of probability of God's existence? I said it was almost certain that God didn't exist, not that God definitely didn't. I think your attitude is very defeatist if nothing else.
I'm actually quite intrigued as to why you're so angry about the few basic premises I've talked about in this thread. Weird.