Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


Super19

Recommended Posts

How do you measure or have any facts on this? Everything is a theory. Much as to something like the multiverse. How can you prove this universe is "evolving", and for what purpose either? Are you going to pull something out like "survival of the fittest UNIVERSE"?

Theories on contracting and expanding universe - http://thequestfortr...nd-the-Big-Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church of Atheism qualifies as illogical, doesn't it. It's still there though. Perhaps you're overrating logic. Or you're wrong about what's illogical. Either way, atheist views are cast into hypocrisy when they admit spirituality is alright and form a church to hold ceremonies and preach their beliefs. 'Oh there's no God, alright. Donations, please?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church of Atheism qualifies as illogical, doesn't it. It's still there though. Perhaps you're overrating logic. Or you're wrong about what's illogical. Either way, atheist views are cast into hypocrisy when they admit spirituality is alright and form a church to hold ceremonies and preach their beliefs. 'Oh there's no God, alright. Donations, please?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to the fact that you pick and choose which questions to respond to. And as another poster said, that is usually a sign of being stumped. For example, you asked how I was taught about religion as a kid, and I told you, but you never responded when I asked you the same question. This is just one of a few examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're atypical of religious people who latch onto a little bit of conjecture and try to hold it up as an alternative equivalent set of evidence or facts for their own supernatural explanations without understanding the actual set of facts and evidence.

ae68a645632f461ca6dfdef.png

. c032ce71357a4a44bbc7776.png

24eb903901aa43f695c2b48.png

bec5f1e2e69b40039dab21d.png

I could do the same with evolution as well.

But I think the point has been made and that being, you clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about but continue to arrogantly argue as if you do.

Pride goeth before the fall.

It's not the same tactic at all, because you start from a place of claim, and then try to move your goalposts in order to fit your claims suppositions. People such as myself don't start off with any assumption, such as the claim that there is a god.....you do. We evaluate your evidence and your reasoning. And because both are rife with faulty logic, reasoning and fallacies or argument, it's easy to produce actual knowledge to refute them and your claim with sound logic, scientific understanding and evidence and reason.

If you took anything near as the same tactics as an educated Atheist would, you'd also be able to identify the inherent problems in your reasoning and beliefs. You instead, make logic leaps. You attempt to shoehorn in scientific principles and hypothesis as supporting evidence. You don't even know the difference between the laymen usage of theory and the scientific definition of Theory.

And again, for the 2nd or 3rd time now, evolution and the origins of the universe, including TBB were discussed plenty before they were accepted through the scientific process as they are now, which by the way is far more rigourous than mere theological debate and consensus regarding the establishment of philosophical/theological truth claims or scientific hypotheses.

Brain-washed? Yes. Very much so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many religions start as a reaction to other religions. For example, the religion of atheism is one based on the rejection of God. What we're witnessing is not a 'joke on christianity', but the outsider joining with the establishment. And every sermon, congregation and ceremony performed only goes toward that inevitability.

Wait and see. Scientology started with less. The common belief in no God among atheists is pretty strong. Strong enough to unite over certainy. The amount of 'funny ha-ha' atheist ministers is growing exponentially. Sooner or later there will be a prophet.

You could still be an atheist and not go to church though. Your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to the fact that you pick and choose which questions to respond to. And as another poster said, that is usually a sign of being stumped. For example, you asked how I was taught about religion as a kid, and I told you, but you never responded when I asked you the same question. This is just one of a few examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Hawking says this universe is most likely fine tuned. Do you agree? Y/N?

Atheists DO start with an assumption - that an absence of evidence is evidence for the absent.

I don't know where you are going with half your post. Please assert your own thought.

What is your point of the bolded statement? Are you suggesting that the study of the big bang theory has outdated the study of biblical scripture? Is this what you are asserting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your characterization of what Stephen Hawking said.

That isn't an assumption, that the rebuttal for the truth claim asserted by the religious, who aren't able to produce any credible evidence for their asserted claim of the natural world. Big difference.

Why would you assume that someone should assume that absence of evidence is evidence?? Completely retarded logic.

The part that you bolded was a continuation of my factual assertion that The Big Bang and Evolution were indeed known and being discussed prior to their adoption as verified science, which refutes your assertion that they weren't, specifically:

It also further illustrates my argument that 'fine-tuning' was a moving of the goal-posts by people like you as a means of attempting to not be at odds with their previous specific or catch-all arguments that "god works in mysterious ways" or the Adam and Eve creation myth, or the necessity for a God in order for the universe and life to exist.

Fine tuning is just among the newest arguments to be debunked.....though it seems you're a bit late to debunking party. No worries though, i'm happy to be your debunking guide to the universe. Enjoy the trip, I hope you don't hurt yourself too much when your argument inevitably falls and you retreat to your sanctum of blind faith and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalala". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...