Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atheism is incompatible with science


Only_

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Habitat said:

I never said people were ignorant for being rational and logical, but where rational and logical fails, as it clearly does with the "riddle of existence", it is futile to imagine it must be the only way of knowledge. That is just a faith.
 

I beg your pardon Mr name caller Sean the sheep idiot Cox etc...... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

 I love science!

???? 

You sure fooled me. You don't seem to have any respect for it and undermine it with religious mumbo jumbo. 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

Do you hate God?

Be honest. :D

Will, how does one hate something that doesn't exist. Do you hate Unicorns? 

What I object to is the people promoting the god fable as of fact. Its not even likely. God is as likely to exist as the Toothfairy is. So the god idea is an assault on logic and common sense. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

To me, a self-evident truth, as self-evident as the truth that we exist. Your problem is not even understanding the limitations of rational thinking. I have moved on, having given full credit to reason and logic, in its domain.

Isn't 'moving on from rational thinking' just an admission that you're making stuff up? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I beg your pardon Mr name caller Sean the sheep idiot Cox etc...... 

Courtney Cox ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Isn't 'moving on from rational thinking' just an admission that you're making stuff up? 

I don't make anything up, Sean the sheep, well.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

I don't make anything up, Sean the sheep, well.....

You have been asked many times to point out where Sean Carroll has made anything up. You have never been able to support your claim. 

Its a perfect example of you eschewing science for a predetermined conclusion, yet your telling other posters you don't do that. 

You do Hab. You just don't seem to be able to admit it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Courtney Cox ?

Would you like me to post where he states ghosts don't exist so you can rant properly, I honestly doubt your memory is that short. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Would you like me to post where he states ghosts don't exist so you can rant properly, I honestly doubt your memory is that short. 

Brian Cox said ghosts don't exist ? Sean Carroll says the afterlife is impossible ? Fallible humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Brian Cox said ghosts don't exist ? Sean Carroll says the afterlife is impossible ? Fallible humans.

Habitat = infallible human?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Horta said:

Habitat = infallible human?

 

Did I say I wasn't, no, of course not, these people are theorizing, which is a poor relation to direct, repeated experience. Guessers !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Brian Cox said ghosts don't exist ? Sean Carroll says the afterlife is impossible ? Fallible humans.

Four old blokes who made some stuff up that sounds good to you is not fallible? 

You claim that they know more than the combined front of modern science because why now? 

Your insistence that science cannot answer the riddle of existance with strong leads on very promising scientific theories but those blokes who convinced themselves that some mystic BS does answer that riddle is not fallible? 

Honestly Hab, you're have a lend of me aren't you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

Did I say I wasn't, no, of course not, these people are theorizing, which is a poor relation to direct, repeated experience. Guessers !

They are applying known science. 

Your applying superstition. 

But your not the guesser? Come on Hab, how do you even convince yourself? You've got to be kidding, surely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Four old blokes who made some stuff up that sounds good to you is not fallible? 

You claim that they know more than the combined front of modern science because why now? 

Your insistence that science cannot answer the riddle of existance with strong leads on very promising scientific theories but those blokes who convinced themselves that some mystic BS does answer that riddle is not fallible? 

Honestly Hab, you're have a lend of me aren't you? 

 Who are these four old blokes ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Horta said:

Habitat = infallible human?

 

Apparently only his so called knowledge of the beyond is infallible :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

 Who are these four old blokes ? 

Your mystics Hab. The people who made up God stuff that your as hung up on as Will is with the UB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

They are applying known science. 

Your applying superstition. 

But your not the guesser? Come on Hab, how do you even convince yourself? You've got to be kidding, surely. 

I think you are actually kidding yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

Give it a go, it doesn't matter how bogus, invent a rational explanation of the old riddle.

 

What's wrong with the very strong leads from science? You still have not explained why they are doomed to fail. You just sort of trailed of with some personal thoughts and keep avoiding the question. Why won't a particle accelerator show us what will answer all our questions? How the universe came to be, and how everything in it came to be? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I think you are actually kidding yourself.

For sure if I expect you to stand behind your statement instead of throwing insults at anyone who successfully challenges your claims and ideas. 

We have seen that with the many times you have been asked to support your statements. You don't have answers, you just want to bully others into dumbing down to your view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What's wrong with the very strong leads from science? You still have not explained why they are doomed to fail. You just sort of trailed of with some personal thoughts and keep avoiding the question. Why won't a particle accelerator show us what will answer all our questions? How the universe came to be, and how everything in it came to be? 

Because causality requires an antecedent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

Can you tell me of any problem that has ever been approached by science, that every proposed rational solution was immediately demonstrable, by logic, as invalid, like this one ? You are sold on rational thinking, or more correctly, would like to be sold on it, but like so very many here, there is that nagging doubt...

How about the periodic table? The discovery of elements? It put a landslide of proof behind the idea and kept many people busy discovering new elements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

Because causality requires an antecedent. 

That's what QM provides with virtual particles. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, psyche101 said:

That's what QM provides with virtual particles. 

A condition arising from.... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pallidin said:

Sorry, I'm not a "The World is all about me" type person.

You're the "I'm too stupid therefore God" type person.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Habitat said:

 

A condition arising from.... ?

A difference of potential. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psyche101 said:

A difference of potential. 

Arising from ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.