Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

That's not what most atheists believe, though. Most atheists simply have no belief in God. That isn't, itself, a belief. It's the lack of belief. No, science proceeds under the methodology of naturalism. Science itself has no religion; though scientists themselves come in every religion. Including Christianity. Somehow, despite the fact that you think science is atheist, they do just fine at it. Not to get into an off-topic subject, but that's simply untrue. There is no Creationist interpretation of the radiometric data. They ignore it; they do not interpret it. That's a pretty surprising claim; could you document it? I'd like to know more. This is true; none of those things are therefore questions of science. If it can't be addressed through a natural methodology then it can't be addressed by science.

I disagree. With the exception of a few off-topic asides he seems to be very much on the topic of this thread.

and you can show how each of the issues you answered are tied to this topic?

The topic is whether or not science can accept a conclusion that would be pro-God. Related to that point are:1) Whether or not science/scientists proceed from an anti-God agenda; whether or not sciene is atheist, and, if so, if that atheism constitutes a religious position
2) What exactly science can investigate
3) If science has in the past denied obvious truth because it would be pro-Godwhich were all issues he raised.With the exception of a comment I noted as off-topic, the issues he raised and that I responded were intimately related to the topic; even if his presentation of them was a little fast and loose.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-23-2005 01:51 AM

That statement is a tautology. And it's also inaccurate insofar as it talks of atheists. It is not the case that atheists actively "believe there is no God". Instead, they simply lack a belief about God, much the same as they lack a belief about pixies. You are equating the word 'belief' with religion. I can believe I have enough money on me to buy a cup of coffee, and this belief may or may not be justified, but I am not religious about it. Of course it is, the evidence is the evidence, and it doesn't change depending on the views of whoever is looking at it. It's the interpretation of the evidence that's different. And whereas evolutionists do not rule out the existence of God based on the evidence, creationists do rule out evolution based on the same evidence. From this it is clear who are the more open-minded. If irrefutable evidence was found for the existence of God, then scientists would accept it. You are turning things around by claiming that science presupposes the non-existence of God and a billions-of-years-old earth. There is no such presupposition in science. First, science does not say God does not exist; in fact, science doesn't say anything about God, because the concept is not susceptible to scientific investigation. Second, that the world is billions of years old is merely the conclusion the data leads us to.If I may do some turning around of my own: with the presupposition that God does exist and that the world is not billions of years old, the data is completely baffling. That's just kicking out belief systems through the front door and letting them in again through the back entrance. On top of that, I suspect that the belief system you want to kick out is the supposed 'religion' of atheism, and the one you'd like to see allowed back in is your own religion. I'd always prefer no answer to the wrong answer.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 23 February 2005 09:56 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Ofcourse, to be specific, I just want to add that it is the equivalent pertaining to the atheist. Pixies and God aren't equivalent. The inductive evidence says that God is a very serious issue, and he is defined as the supernatural and ultimate source of reality.I'm just nitpicking because it is fair to state that it is the atheist whom has God on the same level as santa or pixies. It's a matter of what premise the individual has I suppose.If one dismisses God as the source of superstition and societies' whims pertaining to a sentimental God, and firing him if you don't get what you want, then one might have an infinitely less mature outlook concerning the Creator and thereby is not talking about the same entity as the believer because of his premise.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-23-2005 09:49 AM

Unless, upon further examination, original sin was proven to be part of the human condition. What I mean by this is that the premise of original sin includes the presupposition that humans are predisposed to refute.
We always look for further clarification, further elaboration, and absolute clarification. This is a good and useful trait in the realm of scientific observation. It was good that cyclomates were found to cause cancer before too many people ingested them as artificial sweetener, for example.When it comes to the faith issue of God, however, humans are predisposed to go one "God" further. The usual question is this:
"Who created God?" By nature, we find comfort in our OWN conclusions over what may actually be so. We refuse to allow irrefutable evidence to impress us. True. As a scientist, one must suspend any emotionalism tied to the topic at hand. So in this sense, you are right, Parasomnium.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-23-2005 08:04 AM

Allright, then let me rephrase: "atheists simply lack a belief about God, much the same as they lack a belief about the Hindu pantheon."There are at least 800 million Hindus, to whom the many gods they believe in are a "very serious issue". You are now at liberty to affront them. Go ahead.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

parsmnium writes:

​

If irrefutable evidence was found for the existence of God, then scientists would accept it.

Unless, upon further examination, original sin was proven to be part of the human condition. What I mean by this is that the premise of original sin includes the presupposition that humans are predisposed to refute

---

Given the number of inadequate arguments for the existence of God that have been made - and believed - I would say that it is pretty clear that there is no inherent tendency to refute such arguments.This link leads to a free online version of a classic book on the subject of philosphical arguments for a God - J. L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism QuestiaThis message has been edited by PaulK, 02-23-2005 10:24 AM

Thanks for you reply, Phatboy. Please look upon the following as good-natured comment. It may be very comforting to believe that the volcano, at the bottom of which you build your house, is not going to erupt in your lifetime, but that feeling soon vanishes when you are carried away by a lava flow. So it's rather important to draw the right conclusions, instead of the comforting ones. If it's irrefutable evidence, all you can do is accept it, regardless of whether it impresses you or not. That's what irrefutability is about.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Is this a trick question? The answer is yes, assuming that 1 is one of the numbers on that dice.

THAAAAAANK YOU!!!Sometimes it's hard to even ascribe the word 'atheist' to myself because the term itself implies active denial of the existence of god. While I do, on occasion, actively deny the existence of god, 99% of the time I simply don't even think about it. In fact, I might actually spend more time cogitating pixies.

I do not dismiss god as source of superstition, but I do think the belief in god is a superstistion.There are accounts of personal encounters with Pixies.
What are we to make of them?Just what entity are you talking about?

On second thought, why do you dismiss Pixianity so off-handedly?I think it's only fair to thousands of Pixians that you provide convincing evidence that Pixies and God are not equivalent.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I'm just going to assume you're being cute.There is not thousands of pixians. If there are, show the statistic with a reference. This sentence contains a premise/assertion which I must assume is true(highlighted), along with an incorrect plead for evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant (you whom mentioned pixies), and the assertion has not been proved.You claimed that pixies and God are equivalent. You have to provide evidence. I am arguing the negative.Do I ask you to disprove God? No - because I'm asserting God, not you.If you want to show that pixies are equivalent to God, then you'll have to show such things as debate boards dedicated to this. "Pixies versus evolution" would do nicely.Ofcourse, as I previously stated correctly, nearly everyone on earth believes in God. Pixues just aren't a serious concept.I thought your revised position was more sensible but now I doubt I'll be replying again.That's because I am serious about God, and I've had too many encounters with atheists who aren't serious.So unless you can provide evidence, and define "pixie" as a similar definition to "God", then like I said previously - atheist's subjectivity.Infact, thinking of God as a superstition shows a lack of understanding concerning Him. I think if you think this then you have submitted yourself to modern societies conclusions about God, which are entirely innacurate.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 06:16 AM

---

As for me - I'm a constantly verying potentially undefined diffused mass, intrinsically shape shifting thus forming and re-forming in various gaseous nebulae. To locate my form in the context of energy, as defined by the limited homo sapien brain - one can follow the equation; energy = mike x creo speed² = Thus we now know the relevant nature of my true being to be 90000000000000 omni-mikes ~ mike the wiz ~