atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

There is no such thing as science of the gaps.

Au contraire. The Science of the Gaps is the blind belief that science will one day completely eclipse God by answering all possible questions. You don't see it, because you can't see the fallacy you have become accustomed to. Science was never designed to prove or disprove God: only a fool would try to prosecute that premise. Yet they do, and the religion of the Science of the Gaps continues on, replete with it's disciples and apostles. It's too stinking funny that they just can't see it.

It's like the Science of the Gaps people are trying to find that ONE THING that will disprove God once and for all. Just like that passage from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about the Babel Fish:

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
--THGTG

For all you Science of the Gappers... Good luck in finding your Babel Fish! Bwahahahaha!

[stemann]

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, and scientists that have a fondness for logic know this. Science in its purest form does not have anything to do with God, as you know, and as the scientists themselves know.

Anybody who tries to "use" science to try and disprove God is misusing it- science discovers positive facts, and only negative ones by exclusion.

If a religious person says "God causes thunder with a big wobble-board," and then science shows her to be incorrect, does this show God doesn't exist? Does it show God to be "less plausible"? Of course not, that doesn't make sense. They just happened to be incorrect in their belief.

The idea of "God of the Gaps" is that as more and more people's beliefs about natural effects being attributable to God are shown to be incorrect, less and less natural things can be believed to be attributable to God, and so it is supposed to be "more difficult" to believe in Him. The upshot therefore (for some atheists) is that as science progresses more, God has less of a "function," and so will be shown to be "less plausible." Again, this does not make proper sense, as you can still say "God causes my personal revelation" and even if science conducts a brain scan to show some part of the cortex misfiring, one can still claimed that God caused this.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

The Science of the Gaps is the blind belief that science will one day completely eclipse God by answering all possible questions.

So it's like the counterargument to "God of the Gaps." Even if science proved everything that it was possible to prove, you can't show that God doesn't exist- people like Richard Dawkins and the kind of people that NetDoc seems to hate really believe that you can, but they are just trying to convince people, which doesn't have any bearing on whether He exists or not.

People who say science is based on faith are not technically correct. If you think science will one day create a new form of fuel that runs the entire world from a single gram, then maybe you have faith in that notion, but if you are being logical then you wouldn't go around saying it was definitely true. However, many scientists act without logic just as many theists act without logic- one says "God created life from nothing, abiogenesis is impossible" and the other "Abiogenesis happened, God does not exist." They can't both be right... But they can both be in the wrong.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by stemann

and the kind of people that NetDoc seems to hate

My dear man,

Just because I disagree with them and find their futile attempts to disprove God to be either humorous or pathetic DOES NOT indicate a "hate" for these people. I don't hate ANYONE, but that does not stop me from showing them their illogic.

Well, I might in fact hate racists and bigots, but I am earnestly trying to love them in spite of their heinous hate. Its one of the many, many things that keeps me from being perfect.

[Opethian]

Originally Posted by Netdoc

Ah, you failed reading 101. I said nothing of the sort. Science HAS progressed. I love science, but science never intended to sort out God. That's like trying to use a microwave oven to sort out why your car is misfiring. Microwave ovens are GREAT, but it would be STOOOPID to use it on your car.

Science can't sort out god because god doesn't exist. Nothing in our universe points to the existance of any gods. Science is the only thing we can use to try and explain everything we observe in our lives. An imaginary god doesn't explain anything at all, and it is useless to try and use supernatural illusions as explanations instead of finding accurate scientific theories and laws.

Well, he created life from nothing:

That's only what you believe, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this ridiculous claim.

I have yet to see science replicate this feat. Compared to that, cloning a sheep is merely a parlor trick.

Science does not need to replicate something that never occurred.

You know, I agree that these Science of the Gaps people don't have a clue how clueless they really are. There is nothing sillier than trying to disprove God through science.

Nobody is trying to disprove god since that is impossible, just like it is impossible to prove that there is no flying spaghetti monster or pink unicorn.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Opethian

Science can't sort out god because god doesn't exist.

There ya go. Have fun with that closed mind now! Let me know when it opens up!

[stemann]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

My dear man,

Just because I disagree with them and find their futile attempts to disprove God to be either humorous or pathetic DOES NOT indicate a "hate" for these people. I don't hate ANYONE, but that does not stop me from showing them their illogic.

Well, I might in fact hate racists and bigots, but I am earnestly trying to love them in spite of their heinous hate. Its one of the many, many things that keeps me from being perfect.

I apologise for my lax usage of terminology; I meant "hate" to mean people with whom you strongly disagree on this subject because of their approach thereto.

Originally Posted by Opethian

Science can't sort out god because god doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

There ya go. Have fun with that closed mind now! Let me know when it opens up!

Don't hold your breath......

[michel]

Originally Posted by Opethian

Science can't sort out god because god doesn't exist. Nothing in our universe points to the existance of any gods.

Just one small question, Opethian; Science couldn't sort out ultra violet or infra red rays before science worked out how to recognise them; does that mean that they didn't exist before they were discovered ?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by stemann

Don't hold your breath......

That is GREAT advice! I give it to my Scuba students all the time!

[Archaeopteryx]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

For all you Science of the Gappers... Good luck in finding your Babel Fish! Bwahahahaha!

What are you, four?

This discussion is going nowhere.

Originally Posted by Opethian

Science can't sort out god because god doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

There ya go. Have fun with that closed mind now! Let me know when it opens up!

Who's really closed-minded? One who approaches the concept of a god with an open mind, who finds no evidence to support such a concept, and walks away naturally doubting its validity; or one who approaches the concept with the idea-in-head that it must be true, who also finds no evidence to support its validity, yet still walks away with the mindset that the concept is true, condescendingly claiming that we've simply all misinterpreted the lack of evidence?

'Bob' posits the claim that a massive, aquamarine jellybean is floating amongst the clouds.

'Dan' investigates the issue, scanning the skies for years with his telescope in the locations suggested by 'Bob', yet finds no jellybean, thus arriving at the conclusion that 'Bob' is a quack and no jellybean exists.

'Sam' also investigates, in a manner similar to that of 'Dan', and also finds no tangible evidence for the existence of the jellybean, yet claims to have "felt the presence of the jellybean" and to "know in his heart that the jellybean exists".

Who's closed-minded? 'Dan' approached the situation with an open mind, examined all the given evidence, and arrived at a logical conclusion that the jellybean was bogus; though he is still open to the idea that such a jellybean may exist, continually scanning the skies and listening for reports. 'Sam' received the same bundle of information as 'Dan', yet drew the conclusion that the evidence is incomplete, in an attempt to rationalize his belief that the jellybean, in spite of no supporting evidence, must exist.

Is it logical to believe that the jellybean exists, in spite of no supporting evidence? Is it not logical to draw the conclusion that the jellybean does not exist, based on the absence of supporting evidence?