Fairly recent atheist - looking for a religion - convince me about yours

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,913
Correct, try to refute evolution, or the existence of atomic energy, or even just atoms at all. These are just 3 examples :)
Darwinian Evolution has been (scientifically) proved?
Darwinian Evolution is a (scientifically proven) fact, and not a (thoroughly flawed) theory?
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,519
the thing though is this, science is not irrefutable evidence - it is organised knowledge

and science as a discipline allows for falsifiable theories, so your notion of irrefutable evidence is well, false

tell me do you still subscribe to Newton's theory of gravity?
Newton's theory of gravity is still useful/applicable in certain instances like on very large scales with large stellar objects to explain their rotations and effects on one another, but no, I believe in Einstein's theory of gravity where gravity is the curvature of spacetime.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,193
Newton's theory of gravity is still useful/applicable in certain instances like on very large scales with large stellar objects to explain their rotations and effects on one another, but no, I believe in Einstein's theory of gravity where gravity is the curvature of spacetime.
but Einstein refuted Newton, and now Einstein is also coming under scrutiny

you were saying something about irrefutable?
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,519
but Einstein refuted Newton, and now Einstein is also coming under scrutiny

you were saying something about irrefutable?
I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at? Newton was wrong in certain instances. He still developed his own mathematics to determine how the planets orbit elliptically around other stellar objects. The Concept of Inertia Comes From Newton's First Law
In Newton's time, everything that was known about planetary motion could be summarized succinctly in three laws attributed to Johannes Kepler. The first law states that planets move around the sun on elliptical orbits. The second law states that a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. According to the third law, the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the distance to the sun. These are purely empirical laws, however. They describe what happens without explaining why it happens.

Newton developed a mathematical formulation of gravity that explained both the motion of a falling apple and that of the planets. He showed that the gravitational force between any two objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. When applied to the motion of a planet around the sun, this theory explained all three of Kepler's empirically derived laws.
In any case, what's yer point? How is Einstein coming under scrutiny?
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,193
I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at? Newton was wrong in certain instances. He still developed his own mathematics to determine how the planets orbit elliptically around other stellar objects.


In any case, what's yer point? How is Einstein coming under scrutiny?

my point is that your definition that science is irrefutable is grossly false
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,519
my point is that your definition that science is irrefutable is grossly false
It's based on data and observation until it gets to a point where the data is no longer irrefutable. Example, gravity exists. You can't refute that. You can refute how gravity works perhaps, but not that gravity exists. You can't refute evolution, but you can look at certain tiny processes within evolution and question parts of it, for example, etc etc. So sure you can refute certain aspects of science. That's the difference. Science welcomes heavy scrutiny, religion doesn't.
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,232
The exception being the "holy" ToE (Theory of Evolution).
The "holy" ToE must be protected at all costs, and should not be subjected to any form of scrutiny less it be exposed for the BS ("scientism") it in fact is.
This is a video explains evolution with proof, that man has uncovered along the way. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you but it is the only proof of existence with evidence that we know of at this time.

Unlike Religion with no proof whatsoever for a God or creationism at this time.

So what to believe some facts over no facts or no facts over some facts.

Why couldn't a God create earth and let evolution take place while he was guiding it? is it because your book doesn't say so? is your book 100% correct?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
22,123
maybe google the definition of proof
But here's a definition that excludes your god proofs.

Definition of proof
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
22,123
The exception being the "holy" ToE (Theory of Evolution).
The "holy" ToE must be protected at all costs, and should not be subjected to any form of scrutiny less it be exposed for the BS ("scientism") it in fact is.
It's subject to all forms of scrutiny. That's why most scientists agree with it.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,193
But here's a definition that excludes your god proofs.

Definition of proof
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
yeah you haven't shown how that is the case, your definition is consistent with mine, just more words
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
22,123
yeah you haven't shown how that is the case, your definition is consistent with mine, just more words
For someone who goes on about evidence, it's amusing to see you overlook the word. But let me help you.

1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Fallacious arguments are not evidence.


*waits to be asked to define evidence*
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,193
For someone who goes on about evidence, it's amusing to see you overlook the word. But let me help you.

1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Fallacious arguments are not evidence.


*waits to be asked to define evidence*

I didn't say fallacious arguments is evidence...
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,232
maybe google the definition of proof
Proof: sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.

Religion makes the claim of a God but has yet to prove it and if you can prove it please do so we can stop this debate.

I know you can't because there is no proof, all you have is because God, faith and belief. Faith and belief are as useful as trying to prove Asians are superior to whites with a coin toss and that leaves a God who is the only thing that could prove his existence but chooses not to because God things.

Maybe you should do a bit of googling before making ignorant claims.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,193
Proof: sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.

Religion makes the claim of a God but has yet to prove it and if you can prove it please do so we can stop this debate.

I know you can't because there is no proof, all you have is because God, faith and belief. Faith and belief are as useful as trying to prove Asians are superior to whites with a coin toss and that leaves a God who is the only thing that could prove his existence but chooses not to because God things.

Maybe you should do a bit of googling before making ignorant claims.

for someone who struggles with objective and subjective morals, you seem awfully certain about what you know and don't
 
Top