Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Science versus atheist mystycism

ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2016 10:01:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science.
These are certainly part of the benchmark criteria for an accepted scientific model.

However, certain conjectures move from essentially philosophical ideas (i.e. products of language, intuition and logic) through to fully-fledged scientific conjectures (meaning there are hypothetical mechanisms) through to hypotheses (meaning there are potentially falsifiable consequences) through to observation and experiment.

Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse.
Your problem here, VR, is that you don't understand that this is one of several conjectured interpretations arising principally from Quantum Mechanics but also potentially unifying QM with General Relativity and cosmogenesis, and that certain ways of potentially observing a multiverse (or falsifying it) are presently being explored.

Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
Empiricism requires us to state laws only in terms of observation. So a notion of 'prior' to the big bang can't be modeled until one can say how you'd test it. And similar applies to 'laws'.

Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?
I think we should ignore anyone vain, lazy and dishonest enough not to thoroughly research the science they presume to explain or critique.

That might include atheist mystics (whomever they might be), but would certainly include reactionary, under-read fundamentalist religious apologists with a history of evasion and dishonesty.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 10:23:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

Hey Vice! Continuing my tradition of pointing out your morality is flawed (Which you're sensitive too since you ignore this every time.

Would god approve of you maliciously insulting other people, Vice?
Meh!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 5:57:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

No one have I have ever read or seen claims what you're claiming.

You're projecting what you believe and how you believe it onto others, and it's excellent that you implicitly acknowledge that believing something without testing or evidence is a bad thing.

The multiverse is as good an explanation of the origin of the universe as any other, it solves a number of problems; but it's no more true than any other explanation; although it makes more sense in many ways.

But do I, or anyone else, present it as the definitive explanation of reality? No. Do I, or anyone else, treat it with any more validity than it deserves as merely an "interesting conjecture" that is worth investigating and exploring? no.

I don't think you comprehend how such conjectures thoughts and opinions about the world are held by people you rail against, in part because I suspect you're own mindset is so poisoned by an irrational interpretation of how things should be believed.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 6:07:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 5:57:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

No one have I have ever read or seen claims what you're claiming.

You're projecting what you believe and how you believe it onto others, and it's excellent that you implicitly acknowledge that believing something without testing or evidence is a bad thing.

The multiverse is as good an explanation of the origin of the universe as any other, it solves a number of problems; but it's no more true than any other explanation; although it makes more sense in many ways.

But do I, or anyone else, present it as the definitive explanation of reality? No. Do I, or anyone else, treat it with any more validity than it deserves as merely an "interesting conjecture" that is worth investigating and exploring? no.


I don't think you comprehend how such conjectures thoughts and opinions about the world are held by people you rail against, in part because I suspect you're own mindset is so poisoned by an irrational interpretation of how things should be believed.

It is amazing that these fools cannot seem to comprehend what they are reading.

Dude, you are clearly an expert in science. With your next post, answer these three Qs:

1. Is your belief in the multiverse based on observation?

2. Is your belief in the multiverse based on testability?

3. Is your belief in the multiverse based on repeatability?

If the answer to any of these Qs is "no", you are not doing science.

Instead, you are doing atheist mysticism.

Please do not respond with more of your worthless opinions. No one cares what a fool like your thinks.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 6:13:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 6:07:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/21/2016 5:57:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

No one have I have ever read or seen claims what you're claiming.

You're projecting what you believe and how you believe it onto others, and it's excellent that you implicitly acknowledge that believing something without testing or evidence is a bad thing.

The multiverse is as good an explanation of the origin of the universe as any other, it solves a number of problems; but it's no more true than any other explanation; although it makes more sense in many ways.

But do I, or anyone else, present it as the definitive explanation of reality? No. Do I, or anyone else, treat it with any more validity than it deserves as merely an "interesting conjecture" that is worth investigating and exploring? no.


I don't think you comprehend how such conjectures thoughts and opinions about the world are held by people you rail against, in part because I suspect you're own mindset is so poisoned by an irrational interpretation of how things should be believed.

It is amazing that these fools cannot seem to comprehend what they are reading.

Dude, you are clearly an expert in science. With your next post, answer these three Qs:

1. Is your belief in the multiverse based on observation?

It's not a belief.

2. Is your belief in the multiverse based on testability?

It's not a belief.

3. Is your belief in the multiverse based on repeatability?

It's not a belief.

If the answer to any of these Qs is "no", you are not doing science.

Instead, you are doing atheist mysticism.

Please do not respond with more of your worthless opinions. No one cares what a fool like your thinks.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 6:15:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 6:13:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/21/2016 6:07:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/21/2016 5:57:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

No one have I have ever read or seen claims what you're claiming.

You're projecting what you believe and how you believe it onto others, and it's excellent that you implicitly acknowledge that believing something without testing or evidence is a bad thing.

The multiverse is as good an explanation of the origin of the universe as any other, it solves a number of problems; but it's no more true than any other explanation; although it makes more sense in many ways.

But do I, or anyone else, present it as the definitive explanation of reality? No. Do I, or anyone else, treat it with any more validity than it deserves as merely an "interesting conjecture" that is worth investigating and exploring? no.


I don't think you comprehend how such conjectures thoughts and opinions about the world are held by people you rail against, in part because I suspect you're own mindset is so poisoned by an irrational interpretation of how things should be believed.

It is amazing that these fools cannot seem to comprehend what they are reading.

Dude, you are clearly an expert in science. With your next post, answer these three Qs:

1. Is your belief in the multiverse based on observation?

It's not a belief.

2. Is your belief in the multiverse based on testability?

It's not a belief.

3. Is your belief in the multiverse based on repeatability?

It's not a belief.

If the answer to any of these Qs is "no", you are not doing science.

Instead, you are doing atheist mysticism.

Please do not respond with more of your worthless opinions. No one cares what a fool like your thinks.

Alright, this moron is not worth my time. Moving on. I wish I could find an atheist who knew something about science.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 6:39:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 6:15:59 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/21/2016 6:13:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/21/2016 6:07:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/21/2016 5:57:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

No one have I have ever read or seen claims what you're claiming.

You're projecting what you believe and how you believe it onto others, and it's excellent that you implicitly acknowledge that believing something without testing or evidence is a bad thing.

The multiverse is as good an explanation of the origin of the universe as any other, it solves a number of problems; but it's no more true than any other explanation; although it makes more sense in many ways.

But do I, or anyone else, present it as the definitive explanation of reality? No. Do I, or anyone else, treat it with any more validity than it deserves as merely an "interesting conjecture" that is worth investigating and exploring? no.


I don't think you comprehend how such conjectures thoughts and opinions about the world are held by people you rail against, in part because I suspect you're own mindset is so poisoned by an irrational interpretation of how things should be believed.

It is amazing that these fools cannot seem to comprehend what they are reading.

Dude, you are clearly an expert in science. With your next post, answer these three Qs:

1. Is your belief in the multiverse based on observation?

It's not a belief.

2. Is your belief in the multiverse based on testability?

It's not a belief.

3. Is your belief in the multiverse based on repeatability?

It's not a belief.

If the answer to any of these Qs is "no", you are not doing science.

Instead, you are doing atheist mysticism.

Please do not respond with more of your worthless opinions. No one cares what a fool like your thinks.

Alright, this moron is not worth my time. Moving on. I wish I could find an atheist who knew something about science.

I know a significant amount of science, you just seem to have already concluded whatever it is you want to conclude, and the actual reality is irrelevant. I can tell this, because I explained what you're problem is, you ignored what I said, and repeated your same demands even though you are making a fundamental error in your understanding of what it is your talking about.

The multi-verse is not a belief, I do not believe in it in the way you mean, and no scientist "believes" in it the way you claim.

I think it's actually an interesting conjecture, one that would solve a significant number of problems, is in many ways the most logically self-consistent explanation for what we see around us and if true would provide a detailed answer of some of the problemantic issue with the universe; and as such appears to be the best answer thus far out of all of the answers that have been posited.

Because it's not specifically testable, (actually some are, but that's another argument), which is why you'll never here me, or anyone else arguing as if the multiverses is definitely, or even probably true; only that it's a really interesting answer that solves many problems and mostly fits with our maths and is therefore pretty compelling.

And this is my point; if anyone argues for a multiverse the same way, say, people like you argue for the existence of God, you'd have a point; but no one does. If you pay careful attention, the scientific discussion about multiverse revolves around:

a) It solves/doesn't solve problem X.
b) It's possible/impossible because of Y.
c) It does/doesn't make sense, because if H were present, we should see I, and we do/don't.

This is the first step in the scientific discussion, establishing the validity and/or logical self consistency of the conjecture.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 6:59:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
One way you can tell you are dealing with atheist mystics is that they refuse to answer direct questions about their believes vis-a-via real science.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 6:59:47 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
One way you can tell you are dealing with atheist mystics is that they refuse to answer direct questions about their believes vis-a-via real science.

I answered the question, by pointing out the key premise the question is based upon is wrong.

It's pretty easy to show that I'm wrong.

Show me one Atheist here, including me, who has explicitly presented the multiverse as more than a conjecture.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 9:02:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Viceregent has a good point. The multiverse is not a scientific theory.

It is a way for atheists to pretend there is no god. And nothing more.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 9:11:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 9:02:02 PM, janesix wrote:
Viceregent has a good point. The multiverse is not a scientific theory.

That's right Jane. It's a scientific conjecture that every scientist and anyone science-literate (including science-literate atheists) realise may be wrong.

But it is absolutely not an accepted, tested scientific theory, and anyone who says it is, is lying, and anyone who says scientists or atheists believe it is, is lying too.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 11:21:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 9:02:02 PM, janesix wrote:
Viceregent has a good point. The multiverse is not a scientific theory.

It is a way for atheists to pretend there is no god. And nothing more.

As Ruv pointed out, the Multiverse is a conjecture. It is an idea that may or may not be true, and may or may not even be testable, but one that some aspects of the maths indicate maybe possible, and one that solves a number of issues and problems in the existing universe that may, or may not even turn out to be problems in the first place.

The main starting point of science, is pointing out things that don't fully make sense, trying to think of possible conjectures that could explain them, then expanding those conjectures into a testable hypothesis that you can either discard or investigate further as new evidence and testing comes in.

Idea's are important in science, and discussion about those idea's, even if they are not yet falsifiable, or testable is equally so, because such discussion and expansion may lead to other idea's, or lead to novel ways of providing specific tests for them.

The OP, and many people conflate "finding an idea really intriguing, and thinking it is an excellent explanation to the point where it's really worth investigating and talking about" with "this thing, or idea is absolutely true, or we should talk about it as if it's true".

God is a conjecture for the origin of the universe too; but people like you don't accept that it's a conjecture, and portray it as something that is either likely or sometimes even proven based on poorly reasoned logic, no evidence, and ignoring the problems with the conjecture.

The multi-verse is raised in discussions primarily in the context of fine tuning; when people say the universe is fine tuned, the multiverse is a neat and self consistent explanation of why the universe may not be fine tuned. In raising the multi-verse, it's not that it's being raised as truth, but as an equally valid conjecture as God that negates the problem being raised.

Or, to be more specific: Many religious claim that the universe is fine tuned, ergo their God conjecture must be true; however the exact same appearance of fine tuning would also appear without God in a multi-verse, so apparent fine tuning may not even be fine tuning.

Alternatively, when claiming that the universe needs a beginning, therefore god; it is equally valid to posit that the universe does not need a beginning because of multiverse.

In essence, it's not used as a replacement of God; but to show that the evidence used to support the God conjecture would also be true in an equally valid and equally well evidenced (and in some cases more self consistent) conjecture; so the evidence is not really "evidence" at all.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 6:52:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
(Ramshutu, I wanted to pick up some of your ideas, so I'm replying to your post, but really addressing Jane. I realise you will likely already know much of what I'm writing below.)

At 5/21/2016 11:21:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
God is a conjecture for the origin of the universe too;
Yes, but unlike the multiverse conjecture it's not scientifically valid.

The answer to a scientific question is a mechanism, not a personage. Mechanisms are testable by the traces they leave, while persons are only identifiable by their form, locations and behaviour. And a formless personage with no location and no predictable behaviour cannot be identified at all. So 'God did it' is scientifically invalid because it doesn't identify a mechanism, and untestable even if a mechanism were proposed.

So it's not that empiricism is fleeing God so much as that this kind of theological thought is failing to meet the rigour required by science.

The multiverse is raised in discussions primarily in the context of fine tuning
While the idea has also appeared in philosophy, religion and speculative fiction, it was theoretical physicist Erwin Schroedinger who first proposed it scientifically in 1952 -- that when quantum mechanics is ambiguous on history, it may be that multiple histories were occurring simultaneously (that was a conjecture, not a prediction.) Five years later, this idea was picked up by then-young physicist Hugh Everet III, in the many-worlds interpretation presented in his doctoral thesis. [http://www-tc.pbs.org...]

The motivation behind this interpretation was not to 'explain' the 'fine tuning of the universe' but to explore the impact of quantum mechanics on the ontology of physics (i.e. what exists, how it relates, and how it classifies.) This is the kind of semiphilosophical work theoretical physicists may do routinely, however it must always be done with care, because:

a) one can always interpret the equations of physics in more than one way; and
b) not every interpretation will produce falsifiable mechanisms, so continuing to develop such conjectures absent clear mechanisms or experimental designs risks becoming either pure philosophy or pseudoscience.

In the case of Everett's interpretation, his doctoral thesis saw a great deal of scientific scorn for this very reason -- to the point where he stopped working in physics for a time. However, the idea retained some theoretical currency and has seen attempts to produce experiments and targeted observations that might validate or falsify it, including attempts current to this day.

; when people say the universe is fine tuned, the multiverse is a neat and self consistent explanation of why the universe may not be fine tuned.
Yes -- but that's an unintended side-effect of the Schroedinger-Everet-Deutsch-Wallace interpretations (for example). These thoughts have other, more important uses, and 'fine tuning' claim itself isn't terribly scientific because to have any validity at all requires one to specify the mechanisms by which universes may appear.

There is some work on that, but it's not from the Intelligent Design camp, members of whom nevertheless insist on 'fine tuning' without specifying what mechanisms of formation are being used to 'tune' the product.

it's not that it's being raised as truth, but as an equally valid conjecture as God that negates the problem being raised.
The main reason I replied was to emphasise that:
1) 'Goddidit' is not a valid conjecture scientifically; and
2) Neither is science reacting to Intelligent Design claims when some theoreticians explore multiverses as a conjecture. In fact, multiverse conjectures precede ID claims by several decades.

In essence, it's not used as a replacement of God; but to show that the evidence used to support the God conjecture would also be true in an equally valid and equally well evidenced (and in some cases more self consistent) conjecture; so the evidence is not really "evidence" at all.
Yes, a multi-verse conjecture can be used to rebut 'God did it' too, though that is not its scientific purpose.

Essentially, religious apologists like the OP are deliberately misrepresenting the course of events in the history of science to manufacture a controversy that doesn't exist, simply to claim scientific credence for a theological position that has never been, and can never be made, scientifically credible.

It's legitimate to challenge the validity of a multiverse conjecture because (so far) it hasn't yet been rendered testable. However it is outright false to say it is an accepted scientific theory -- it's very much not. It's a misrepresentation to say 'atheists believe it' -- atheists need believe no such thing. And it's false to suggest that scientists 'invented' the multiverse to avoid acknowledging creationism as a legitimate scientific conjecture -- a multiverse is a natural interpretation of Shroedinger's equations, it predated the Intelligent Design movement by decades, and ID isn't valid science in the first place. :p
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 5:40:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:

The average Tuesday on the Science Forums:

ViceRegent: These atheists with their magic wands and froo-froo books! They are soooo ignorant and totally unable to answer simple questions or understand science. Why is it that I have *literally* walked from town to town for thousands of miles trying to find just ONE atheist who can answer my question... BUT COULDN'T? So you tell me you non-be-liars, who can answer this: 1 + 1 = ???

Guy A: I'm pretty sure it's 2.

VR: *Typical* atheist NON-RESPONSE with the duck and weave. Can't even answer a simple question with words that aren't totally made up.

Guy B: Dude, guy A was just telling you the answer is two.

VR: Atheists always want to insult, bash and usually rape believers for being "followers", but I know who the REAL sheeple are! Always joining in with their atheist fiend buddies.

Girl A: viceregent, it sometimes seems like you want everyone to be stumped by your questions and totally agree with you and when they don't you just ignore them and pretend they said whatever it is you would have liked.

VR: And now with the ad hominem attacks, where does the atheist madness stop?! And STILL my question goes unanswered.

12 or so people: It's 2, yo.

VR: I'm done trying to convince you atheist mystics of anything. Maybe the Devil can set you straight... in HELL!

[VR, in a maddened glee, quickly types up another post for the Science Forum.]
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 7:45:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 5:40:18 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:

The average Tuesday on the Science Forums:

ViceRegent: These atheists with their magic wands and froo-froo books! They are soooo ignorant and totally unable to answer simple questions or understand science. Why is it that I have *literally* walked from town to town for thousands of miles trying to find just ONE atheist who can answer my question... BUT COULDN'T? So you tell me you non-be-liars, who can answer this: 1 + 1 = ???

Guy A: I'm pretty sure it's 2.

VR: *Typical* atheist NON-RESPONSE with the duck and weave. Can't even answer a simple question with words that aren't totally made up.

Guy B: Dude, guy A was just telling you the answer is two.

VR: Atheists always want to insult, bash and usually rape believers for being "followers", but I know who the REAL sheeple are! Always joining in with their atheist fiend buddies.

Girl A: viceregent, it sometimes seems like you want everyone to be stumped by your questions and totally agree with you and when they don't you just ignore them and pretend they said whatever it is you would have liked.

VR: And now with the ad hominem attacks, where does the atheist madness stop?! And STILL my question goes unanswered.

12 or so people: It's 2, yo.

VR: I'm done trying to convince you atheist mystics of anything. Maybe the Devil can set you straight... in HELL!

[VR, in a maddened glee, quickly types up another post for the Science Forum.]

This.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
lovesnivy
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 11:10:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

Sir, you are aware that none of this 'mystycism' has anything to do with not believing a 'God' exists?
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 3:10:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 11:10:47 PM, lovesnivy wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim. Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable. They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

Sir, you are aware that none of this 'mystycism' has anything to do with not believing a 'God' exists?

Only to those who are utterly uneducated in the logical connectedness of one idea to another. Atheist Mystics are far more consistent than are atheist scientists. After all, one fails to find the uniformity of nature, a necessary precondition for science, in the chaos out of which atheist fools claim the universe came from. This is why all of the founders of modern science where creationists, not atheists. And it is why science is devolving into the atheistic mysticism nonsense the more atheists "reasesrch".
missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 4:46:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 6:59:47 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
One way you can tell you are dealing with atheist mystics is that they refuse to answer direct questions about their believes vis-a-via real science.

Calling the kettle black.....................................................
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 8:40:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim.

What is the evidence that most atheists belief multiverse theory is proved true? My guess is that most atheists have never heard of multiverse theory, and nearly all the rest view it as a conjecture that is possibly true, but unproved. String theory is in the same category. It is possibly true, but still unproved.

Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable.

I don't know of any scientist who makes assertive claims about the nature of the universe before the Big Bang. Scientists like to have continuity, so the prejudice is in favor of the laws of nature being the same, but the continuity of the laws of nature is tested to the extent possible. For example, scientists worry about how the Big Bang could have occurred while preserving conservation of energy. Some tests are theoretically possible. For example if there was a previous Big Bang before the present one, residual gravity waves might be detected. You are wrong in supposing that atheists, or any scientists, are characteristically making claims of things unproved.

They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

Your premise regarding what atheists believe is completely false, so your conclusion is false. The purpose of developing unproved conjectures is to devise tests that would prove or disprove them. the starting point is to develop a conjecture that agrees with all the known data. Once that hurdle is passed, it's then up for testing.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 10:40:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 8:40:38 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/20/2016 7:24:56 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Have you noticed that most of what atheists believe that they call science is not observable, testable or repeatable, which is the benchmark for science. Take for example, the silly idea of a multiverse. It is completely unscientific for one cannot apply the scientific method to the claim.

What is the evidence that most atheists belief multiverse theory is proved true? My guess is that most atheists have never heard of multiverse theory, and nearly all the rest view it as a conjecture that is possibly true, but unproved. String theory is in the same category. It is possibly true, but still unproved.

Likewise, you have some atheist fools claiming that the law of the universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, not testable.

I don't know of any scientist who makes assertive claims about the nature of the universe before the Big Bang. Scientists like to have continuity, so the prejudice is in favor of the laws of nature being the same, but the continuity of the laws of nature is tested to the extent possible. For example, scientists worry about how the Big Bang could have occurred while preserving conservation of energy. Some tests are theoretically possible. For example if there was a previous Big Bang before the present one, residual gravity waves might be detected. You are wrong in supposing that atheists, or any scientists, are characteristically making claims of things unproved.

They do this, of course, because the real laws of science show them that their views are contrary to reality. But for pagan religious, including atheism, they will simply replace science with mysticism. Should we not ignore atheist mystics who are utterly ignorant of science?

Your premise regarding what atheists believe is completely false, so your conclusion is false. The purpose of developing unproved conjectures is to devise tests that would prove or disprove them. the starting point is to develop a conjecture that agrees with all the known data. Once that hurdle is passed, it's then up for testing.

I love the arrogance of these fools. Not only do they pretend to speak for all atheists, they think if they deny reality, reality is false. Atheists are mentally ill. This dude just proved it.