Supernatural and Atheism

[Anomalocaris]

Scientific theory is only of value if it accurately predicts something otherwise unknown.     To say the theory is fact merely because it seems to have worked as well as can be expected upon what is already known doesn’t exactly guaranty  its on-going value.     Whether the theory would work as well in a new place where one previously have not looked can and should always be doubted and then tested.      To assert that just because a theory worked in all cases hitherto tested therefore it is an all encompassing fact everywhere else as well is frequently the beginning of folly.

That our World is approximately 4.5 billion years old is a fact; such will never change, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, to conclude otherwise.

The probability that future discovery will invalidate the supposition that the earth formed 4.56 billion years ago seems very low, but it is not nonexistent.    It is unreasonable to count on the world not being 4.56 billion years old.    But it is equally unreasonable to deny in principle the possibility that discovery can yet be made that explain why the world is not 4.56 billion years old and yet present the appearance of being 4.56 billion years old to tests we’ve hitherto been able to conduct.   Suppose for example it is discovered in the future that certain “constants” of physics in fact varied through time, so the rate of radioactive decay unstable atomic nuclei had indeed not been constant…..

To not doubt when occasion arise that should call for doubt to be entertained and tested is the beginning of a particularly pernicious kind of folly called faith.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that all knowledge is tentative. If we're unwilling to change what we think of as facts, then we will be unable to learn. Sometimes hose changes are revolutionary (Copernicus), sometimes they're evolutionary (Einstein refining Newtonian mechanics).

But learning relies upon the willingness to consider oneself in error.

I disagree.  Sometimes evidence reaches a "critical mass" that it becomes unreasonable to deny it.  The fact that George Washington was the first US President is an immutable, eternal fact of Nature.

That's history, not science, which is the topic at hand.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh dear, Lek's at it again ....

How many times must I repeat that's an individual question? If a person has one trait or another as part of their gender (male or female) then it falls under that category for them personally and yes that is defining what gender is.


Then there is this silliness 

When society starts identifying people by their preferred gender it causes harm to others, such as the situation with the college swimmer and the military draft.

Anybody should be able to compete in a swimming team if they are talented enough and military drafts shouldn't exist period 

 It also grates when people start call to abolish terms such as mother and father. 

No one cares if it grates them and they have the right call for whatever they want.

I'm also with someone who wishes to believe they're a different gender, but they are not the authorities for redefining wours for society- not on their own.

Actually, they have as much authority as anyone on that subject. And if you don't like that tough...

Don't use transgenderism as an excuse to,introduce sexual matters to first graders. Just be who and what you are.

There is no such thing as transgenderism it's not an idealogy and no one is freaking doing that. Telling first graders gay people exist and aren't monster isn't sexual. Telling first graders drag queens exist isn't sexual either. The right wing defines any subject in this vein as "sexual" when it isn't.

I am amazed that all you science-minded people so easily abandon the principles that you use to beat me over the head.

There is nothing we have said that abandons science...

You can't even come up with one characteristic that separates the genders.

I have already answered this multiple times including the above...

I am a theist by definition because I believe in God.

Yup, that's the unscientific belief here .....

I can't believe in God and be a theist because I personally define theism that way.

Great no one cares 

 What happened to science and logic?

Nothing happened to them .....



So are you done parading your ignorance Lek?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Society is progressing whether people like Lek like it or not, And he can live in befuddlement repeating " what's the difference between genders if both genders can have the same ..... And all look at him in sympathy of cluelessness....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Scientific theory is only of value if it accurately predicts something otherwise unknown.     To say the theory is fact merely because it seems to have worked as well as can be expected upon what is already known doesn’t exactly guaranty  its on-going value.     Whether the theory would work as well in a new place where one previously have not looked can and should always be doubted and then tested.      To assert that just because a theory worked in all cases hitherto tested therefore it is an all encompassing fact everywhere else as well is frequently the beginning of folly.

That our World is approximately 4.5 billion years old is a fact; such will never change, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, to conclude otherwise.

But science is not just a collection of facts - it is primarily a method for arriving at a close approximation of those facts. It is not inconceivable that a different methodology will someday establish an age for the world of, say, 4.61 billion years or 4.48 billion years. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that somewhere there is at least one credible geologist or cosmologist working on refining this data.

ALL scientific knowledge is provisional. As it should be.

Boru

[Ahriman]

That our World is approximately 4.5 billion years old is a fact; such will never change, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, to conclude otherwise.

But science is not just a collection of facts - it is primarily a method for arriving at a close approximation of those facts. It is not inconceivable that a different methodology will someday establish an age for the world of, say, 4.61 billion years or 4.48 billion years. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that somewhere there is at least one credible geologist or cosmologist working on refining this data.

ALL scientific knowledge is provisional. As it should be.

Boru

Wow.......ambitious, aren't we? Try comprehending that, by a particular non-scientist's calculations, Earth is 6,000 years old. Yeesh. Now there's some real fuckin' science.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Wow.......ambitious, aren't we? Try comprehending that, by a particular non-scientist's calculations, Earth is 6,000 years old. Yeesh. Now there's some real fuckin' science.

There is zero evidence for a 6000-year-old earth and those calculations are dog shit.

[Ahriman]

Wow.......ambitious, aren't we? Try comprehending that, by a particular non-scientist's calculations, Earth is 6,000 years old. Yeesh. Now there's some real fuckin' science.

There is zero evidence for a 6000-year-old earth and those calculations are dog shit.

No way, really?

[The Architect Of Fate]

There is zero evidence for a 6000-year-old earth and those calculations are dog shit.

No way, really?

What are you babbling about?

[Mister Agenda]

Lek, how do you feel about Ahriman asserting that irrationality and religion are synonyms?