Theism is unscientific

[alal...@gmail.com]

Theism cannot be falsified, as such is unscientific. Unfortunately, as someone pointed out to me, many historically famous scientists were religious (like Isaac Newton). Among current famous scientists, I believe Hawking is an atheist.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

[HVAC]

Anyone who understands science and uses scientific methods understands that there is no god.

Conversely, anyone who believes in god has abandoned science and replaced it with superstition

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Yes, there is no proof of God this side of death.
The fact is science and religion are answering different
questions. They influence each other, but do not define
each other.

For example, Science has an underlying assumption that
we can understand the universe. That assumption originally
came from the concept of a creator. The logic is:
If the universe was created, then it must have a natural order.

Some scientists now just take the second part as an assumption.

Obviously as a Christian, I do not really see a conflict,
except when religious persons try to do dogmatic science
(such as creationism versus evolution) and scientific persons
try to do dogmatic religion (atheists condemning theists
as insane).

If you are sincere in your religious beliefs then you
would not need to condemn others.
Belief is a word that is not useful in science.
So it is unscientific to say
"I believe climate change is real."
but rather
"I accept the current evidence that climate change is real."

I think sincere people can have a calm discussion on this.
Just be careful of the trolls on both ends of the spectrum
of this topic that lurk in this group.

Enjoy.
ed

[Yuri Kretin]

Theism is Atheism, both are religions as the are required to believe
there is no god.

[Yuri Kretin]

All theism is atheism, as both are religions that require the belief
that there is no god. Theism and atheism is required for communism and
socialism as they want no higher authority than the men that tell them
what to do. Science cannot explain everything, our Math and modeling
breaks down after only 4 dimensions. Theists have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism.

[alal...@gmail.com]

Theism is the belief in the existence of God or gods, as opposed to atheism. Religion was an approach to truth, that gave some answers a long time ago, but is now mostly outdated. Now we have much superior tools for discovering truth, like science.

Theism and religion is for people who can't think for themselves and need to be told what to do. Atheists are mostly independent and critical thinkers.

Sometimes I wish there was a god, a loving God, but have found no proof of his existence. Science cannot yet explain many things, like consciousness, but that doesn't mean they never will.

I have no objection to anyone following religion, as they can provide moral guidance. But as the Dalia Lama said, "Ethics is more important than religion".

[Odd Bodkin]

On 1/19/2017 9:39 AM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Theism is the belief in the existence of God or gods, as opposed to atheism.
> Religion was an approach to truth, that gave some answers a long time ago,
> but is now mostly outdated. Now we have much superior tools for discovering
> truth, like science.
>
> Theism and religion is for people who can't think for themselves and need to
> be told what to do. Atheists are mostly independent and critical thinkers.
>
> Sometimes I wish there was a god, a loving God, but have found no proof of his
> existence. Science cannot yet explain many things, like consciousness, but
> that doesn't mean they never will.
>
> I have no objection to anyone following religion, as they can provide moral
> guidance. But as the Dalia Lama said, "Ethics is more important than religion".
>
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
>

I don't want to engage in an off-topic discussion of atheism vs. theism,
but I will direct some comments about your overexuberance about science.

First of all, it is hopeless to say that the ONLY reliable method for
discovering truth is science. Science has a clearly defined scope and
there are certain propositions that science steers clear of, on purpose.
As a simple example, metaphysics asserts truth, but not on propositions
that physics would be able to answer -- hence METAphysics.

Second, to say that all thinking people are atheists is ridiculous.
There are Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who are devout believers.
Evidence counter to a theory is enough to discount the theory, and your
theory about the nature of theists vs. atheists is no exception.

It is true that atheists tend to be more independent and less social,
more inclined to be single and less married, more inclined to be
libertarian and less inclined to favor societal contracts and
regulation. These are objective observations, well documented, but where
the mistake would then be is then claiming that these are superior
positions.

As a final note, I'll just mention that the best physics outputs have
been the result of collaboration, something that atheists are less good at.

[Yuri Kretin]

agree.

> Science has a clearly defined scope and
> there are certain propositions that science steers clear of, on purpose.
> As a simple example, metaphysics asserts truth, but not on propositions
> that physics would be able to answer -- hence METAphysics.

> Second, to say that all thinking people are atheists is ridiculous.
> There are Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who are devout believers.
> Evidence counter to a theory is enough to discount the theory, and your
> theory about the nature of theists vs. atheists is no exception.

agree

>
> It is true that atheists tend to be more independent and less social,
> more inclined to be single and less married, more inclined to be
> libertarian and less inclined to favor societal contracts and
> regulation. These are objective observations, well documented, but where
> the mistake would then be is then claiming that these are superior
> positions.

agree.

>
> As a final note, I'll just mention that the best physics outputs have
> been the result of collaboration, something that atheists are less good at.

agree

[benj]

On 1/19/2017 8:16 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Anyone who understands science and uses scientific methods understands that there is no god.
>
> Conversely, anyone who believes in god has abandoned science and replaced it with superstition
>

"understands Science"? Since I have proved beyond any doubt that Bert
knows much more science than Hardblow, it's pretty clear this is
worthless drool as usual.

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:49:56 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/19/2017 9:39 AM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Theism is the belief in the existence of God or gods, as opposed to atheism.
> > Religion was an approach to truth, that gave some answers a long time ago,
> > but is now mostly outdated. Now we have much superior tools for discovering
> > truth, like science.
> >
> > Theism and religion is for people who can't think for themselves and need to
> > be told what to do. Atheists are mostly independent and critical thinkers.
> >
> > Sometimes I wish there was a god, a loving God, but have found no proof of his
> > existence. Science cannot yet explain many things, like consciousness, but
> > that doesn't mean they never will.
> >
> > I have no objection to anyone following religion, as they can provide moral
> > guidance. But as the Dalia Lama said, "Ethics is more important than religion".
> >
> > Abhinav Lal
> > Writer & Investor
> >
>
> I don't want to engage in an off-topic discussion of atheism vs. theism,
> but I will direct some comments about your overexuberance about science.
>
> First of all, it is hopeless to say that the ONLY reliable method for
> discovering truth is science. Science has a clearly defined scope and
> there are certain propositions that science steers clear of, on purpose.
> As a simple example, metaphysics asserts truth, but not on propositions
> that physics would be able to answer -- hence METAphysics.

Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. Most natural phenomenon is now explained by science, what was once explained by religion. It is now generally accepted that blaming gods for natural phenomenon is wrong.

Is there any evidence I can present, that will convince you to become an atheist? If I see evidence of God I am willing to become a theist.

>
> Second, to say that all thinking people are atheists is ridiculous.
> There are Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who are devout believers.
> Evidence counter to a theory is enough to discount the theory, and your
> theory about the nature of theists vs. atheists is no exception.

It is well known, the correlation between intelligence and atheism.

>
> It is true that atheists tend to be more independent and less social,
> more inclined to be single and less married, more inclined to be
> libertarian and less inclined to favor societal contracts and
> regulation. These are objective observations, well documented, but where
> the mistake would then be is then claiming that these are superior
> positions.

It is also objectively known that atheists tend to be more intelligent, educated, and rich.

>
> As a final note, I'll just mention that the best physics outputs have
> been the result of collaboration, something that atheists are less good at.