0 members (),
628
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3 |
It is our belief that the discipline of science has been hijacked by atheists and used to support atheistic beliefs.
It is our belief based on scientific method and empirical evidence; atheism cannot state that there is no God. It can only state “At this present time in human history we cannot prove with existing instruments of measurement and detection that there is or is not a God or a spiritual realm where he is suppose to exist.”
more at deiscovery.com
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Yes, as science by itself says nothing (nor is it even designed to say anything) about G0d. Science is concerned only with the material (physical universe) world.
...and as an example of how science doesn't matter to the above argument.... Just substitute the word religion (for atheism) above and your statement is still true.
One can find many examples, throughout history, of how science (or religion) has been co-opted and subverted.
One has the will; the other has the skill.... Religion and science should work together to save Creation and lift Mankind out of dispair.
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Gosh, thanks; I enjoy learning and writing.
...so in 2 sentences or less; what's deiscovery.com?
Check out the Not-Quite Science Forum here also (for reading -or asking- philosophical or metaphysical questions).
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
It is our belief that the discipline of science has been hijacked by atheists and used to support atheistic beliefs. Many people attempt to 'hijack' science. Currently, I'm much more concerned with the attempts by religionists of various stripes to subvert science. It is our belief based on scientific method and empirical evidence; atheism cannot state that there is no God.
That is not a matter of method or evidence, but on philosophy of science. Science cannot state there is no God, because science only deals with the natural world. Whether a 'supernatural' world exists is utterly irrelevant to science. It can only state “At this present time in human history we cannot prove with existing instruments of measurement and detection that there is or is not a God or a spiritual realm where he is suppose to exist.”
To the extent that God is a supernatural entity, science isn't ever going to be able to address questions about it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
...unfairly,,,? I think not!
Should this not be in NQS?
Last edited by Ellis; 02/20/08 12:37 AM. Reason: Added ?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
From: http://deiscovery.com/"Purposed Research Project Prove the existence of “the spirit realm”  Science is the study of the physical, natural world.  The supernatural is, by definition, not within the scope of science.  Scientists can study only the physical phenomena allegedly associated with the supernatural.  Science has the potential only to prove that all such phenomena are attributable to specific physical causes. That being so, the project is a non-starter. Atheists appear to have a very firm foothold in science. Why? Well, here are two suggestions: (1) Because they reject the contention that there is any physical phenomenon that cannot eventually be explained without recourse to the supernatural. (2) Because they are not hampered in their reasoning and research by various irrational/non-scientific/anti-scientific theological beliefs Has science been 'unfairly' hijacked by atheists? Hardly. Atheists simply refuse to subvert and contort science in an attempt to fit it into an irrational belief system. This may give the impression of a hijacking, but whose fault is that? If they have a disproportionately large share of the scientific cake, maybe it's because so many theists don't like the taste of it.
|
|
|
|
Curran Dobbs
Unregistered
|
Curran Dobbs
Unregistered
|
What strikes me as the most logical conclusion is that, at the moment, there is no conclusion yet (or maybe ever). So far, science makes a compelling (to me, anyways) argument towards agnosticism.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
What strikes me as the most logical conclusion is that, at the moment, there is no conclusion yet (or maybe ever). So far, science makes a compelling (to me, anyways) argument towards agnosticism.
What is agnosticism? Meet Thomas H.Huxley, the inventor of the word 'agnosticism' http://www.quotatio.com/h/huxley-thomas-h-agnosticism-simply-means-that-a-082985.htmlIf T.H. Huxley is right there is one one true 'gnostic, God--if there is a God. Perhaps the only thing I really know is that I am and I exist. I know a few things and that, like Descartes, using the process of thinking and the tool of science, I want to know more and more of the great Gnostic--GOD--all the existence, knowledge, wisdom and power that there is.
Last edited by Revlgking; 02/20/08 02:52 PM.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3 |
My comments are based on the common idea that "To prove that God does not exist we will turn to science ..." I think this is unfair to science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
I am an atheist. I disagree with those who maintain that science disproves God. More than that, I think science cannot address the subject of God. That said, the more one learns about science, the less inclined one feels the need to look for explanations of things outside of nature.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Atheists, define what comes to your mind when you hear, or read, the word 'God'?
As a unitheist--that is, one who experiences the total unity of nature (physical, mental and spiritual)--I think of science as a tool which anyone can use to try and discover and understand more and more of GOD, or GØD. That is, the totality of Goodness, Order and Design--the highest good. I have no objection to calling this, Nature. The bottom line is: What does ones experience of GOD, or Nature, do to help one be of good moral character, an ethical and loving human being.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Deiscovery- It is impossible to prove a negative---as Spock would say-- it is illoical.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Deiscovery- It is impossible to prove a negative---as Spock would say-- it is illogical. I agree. In my opinion trying to prove a negative is also counter productive, a waste of time, uncreative and certainly not the loving thing to do to spend one's time trying and prove others wrong. This is why I prefer to dialogue rather than debate. Debating to prove another wrong is the devil's--if there is a devil--game, a zero-sum game in which there are losers. Therefore, IN THE SPIRIT OF DIALOGUE, I am into affirming the productive and positive, offering readers what I think, feel and know and helps make the world a better place. I want to learn from agnostics and atheists, not judge or condemn them. For details on what I believe about GOD, my theology, check out the thread PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGIONS, ALL RELIGIONS--now well over 110,000 clicks, which was started by Turner, my son. BTW, both my children--Turner (married to a Muslim, and with three children, is 49) Catherine (married to an artist, with two grown children) is 52 are well-educated artists and teachers--are, like my wife and I, unitheists/pan entheists. Do a search--Wiki/Google--on these and you will discover what we mean by GOD. The part of GOD that we know, like the air (pneuma) we breathe, is self evident. Jesus told the Samaritan woman: GOD is Pneuma. We get our word 'Spirit' from the Latin translation. It is self evident--no double-blind study necessary--that one cannot live without taking the next breath. PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS Using philosophy, the sciences plus technology, the King family explores Nature/GOD; using the arts we apply what we discover to get useful, beautiful and good things done. BTW, starting from nothing in 1991, my daughter and her artist husband--both GOD-connected people--have built a floating property, including floating gardens (where they grow most of their food), which covers more than a quarter of an acre. They got over half the materials using the the tradeBUX system http://www.universalbartergroup.com. The property is now worth well over one million dollars. All the media have given this project excellent coverage.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
To reiterate, I think a greater problem is the attempted hijacking of science by religionists. They can't make any inroads into the scientific research community and so they are taking their case to the courts and to the public.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Yes, earlier I avoided mentioning the Creationists and ID'ers tendency to create unscientific "theories" based on scientific data. [unscientific theory= no unifying, explanatory, or predictive power]
My biggest pet peeve are folks who use "popular wisdom" (widely held, but incompletely understood "belief" about science) to further a "logical" argument. Just this morning on C-Span, with Dr. Bruno, some old guy called in to logically explain that since humans weren't around back in the hot Jurassic, other things must be responsible for global warming now.
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
OK, I presume that everyone clearly understands the following: While I respect all sincerely-held forms of humble faith, I do not respect religionism--an exaggerated inclination toward religion. I do not respect religious bigots who strive to impose their so-called "true" beliefs on others. Religion ism is unhealthy. This includes science ism.
Last edited by Revlgking; 02/21/08 11:05 PM.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Some will be shocked to discover that this is a science forum. Science and religion are completely different kinds of inquiry. Science has a methodology and an sphere of application. Religion is like the ring of power to the scientist. You may don it with the best of intentions, but the wise man knows he'd best save it for the hobbits.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
That's a great analogy--- but I agree we must remember that the ring corrupts people by the promise of absolute power (in other words--remember the Bomb!)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
TFF, you say, "Religion is like the ring of power to the scientist." Question: What in heaven and on earth is a "ring of power"? How many atom bombs does it equal?
|
|
|
|
|